The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Clerk to the Assembly

Mr Speaker: Members will have noted that the new Clerk to the Northern Ireland Assembly has taken up his post today. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Mr Arthur Moir every success in his new position.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the current position on foot-and- mouth disease and the implications for Northern Ireland.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to update the Assembly on the situation with the foot-and- mouth disease in Northern Ireland since I last did so on 26 March. As Members will doubtless know and be thankful for, the situation has remained static, and we have had just one confirmed outbreak.
However, my major concern now relates to the Republic, where there has been a very recent outbreak and where the risk of further cases must be correspondingly high. Members will be aware of the suspect case which was reported in County Louth last Thursday. I am glad to say that the preliminary test results for that case were negative.
I am also concerned about the position in Great Britain, where the number of cases continues to rise daily. Both of these situations present the very real risk that we will import the virus again. Although I and my Executive Colleagues will do what we can to counter that threat, I make no apology for stressing again the need for farmers to adopt a fortress mentality as a last line of defence.
With regard to other aspects of the present situation, the major development over the past week was the EU decision to regionalise the foot-and-mouth disease controls on Northern Ireland. That decision represents a very considerable achievement for us and allows most of Northern Ireland to resume something like normal trade in the relevant products with effect from next week.
Although this is an excellent result, it does bring problems with it. As the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is aware, tomorrow the Newry and Mourne District Council area will become subject to several controls aimed at ensuring that products from there do not get into the rest of Northern Ireland. This is because the European Commission required that we identify a discrete administrative area within which the site of the outbreak was located and where the necessary controls could apply. The smallest such area round south Armagh is this district council area.
I recognise that this will cause problems for farmers and processers in the area, but my officials are working to minimise the impact of these controls as far as possible. Disease permitting, our next move will be to have the controls on the Newry and Mourne District Council area lifted so that the whole of Northern Ireland is removed from the relevant export controls. We will be making that bid once 30 days have elapsed and cleansing and disinfection have been undertaken at the scene of the Meigh outbreak — that is as soon as possible after next Thursday, 5 April. However, that will not be an easy case to win.
In the meantime it is essential that we be able to demonstrate to the Commission that the district has been sealed off in so far as the movement of susceptible animals and their product is concerned. My officials are assessing precisely what needs to be done to achieve that. Where further help is needed from other Departments, I will address that through the interdepartmental group which I chair and which is working very effectively. We will also liaise with the RUC to agree what contribution is necessary from it.
The second major development during the past week was my joint announcement with Joe Walsh of our intention to carry out a precautionary cull of sheep in the area around and between the locations of the two outbreaks, North and South of the border. Our rationale was the creation of a firebreak round both outbreaks to prevent the spread of any further infection in that area. Unfortunately, that idea quickly ran into difficulty due to concerns among the local community over several aspects of our proposals. Initially those concerns revolved around the disposal of the sheep carcasses, but, recognising the urgency, I was able to agree to have the carcasses rendered instead of buried. Subsequently, it became clear that some people had concerns over the financial impact of the cull. That was not helped by the circulation of misleading rumours that the authorities in the Republic were offering higher rates of compensation than normal for sheep to be culled within their jurisdiction. I had those reports investigated with the authorities in the Republic, and they were incorrect.
Last Thursday I was able to reassure the people concerned that they would receive compensation in the normal way, and at the normal rates. The value of the animals will, as always, be assessed by valuers from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and in the event of any dispute, independent valuers will be brought in to arbitrate.
There have been reports in the press since last Thursday of an amnesty for some of the farmers involved. I will take this opportunity to set the record straight. No amnesty was granted; nor, indeed, would I have considered granting one. This was potentially a very difficult situation, and I would like at this point to pay tribute to the contribution by John Gilliland of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and Nigel McLaughlin of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA). The fact that the farming unions were seen to be being so supportive of the Department’s attitude was crucial to a resolution of the problem.
At least one MLA has expressed concerns about the fact that we are taking the carcasses out of the area for disposal. However, I am satisfied with the Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice that, with the appropriate disease precautions, of the options available to me this disposal route represents the one with the lowest risk. Members will note that an independent vet has since confirmed that view.
There were several other significant events this week. The Executive were able to agree and announce a relaxation of the restrictions on movements by the general public. That has gone down well, and I hope that it will now provide the springboard for a recovery for tourism. Coupled to that, I announced last Friday some easement in the controls on the movement of animals under licence to take account of general welfare issues that have been raised with the Department. Those come into effect today.
Finally, I shall announce soon the establishment of a group to examine the changes that might be needed to protect us better from animal disease in the future. I need to stress, however, that such a group will have to work within the parameters set by the European Union to protect the free market. Nevertheless, there are various practices that have clearly contributed to the outbreak of the disease and its subsequent spread, and those must be reconsidered.
Although we should not be satisfied with a situation in which we have had a case of foot-and-mouth disease, we can take comfort from the fact that, as each day passes, we can be surer that the outbreak has been controlled. I call on everyone in the community to continue to observe the controls that are still in place, particularly those aimed at preventing further importation of the virus from elsewhere. In particular, I appeal to the people of Newry and Mourne to bear with us, to co-operate with my staff and to observe the controls that will come into effect over the next few days. I will do all that I can to get the controls lifted as soon as possible, but, in the meantime, it is vital that they be complied with — to the letter.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am glad that the Minister made it clear in her statement that the decision on the cull of sheep came from her and Joe Walsh and not from the EC. There seemed to be some idea that the EC had initiated it and said "If you do not do this, you can have what you want."
The Minister stated that she wanted to put the record straight about the negotiations. Conveniently, however, she did not deal with the fact that the question of amnesty was discussed at that meeting. That was entirely out of order, because neither the Minister nor her officials have authority in that matter. There was a long and heated discussion at that meeting about the granting of amnesty.
Why did the Minister not do for the people of north Belfast what she did for the people of south Armagh? Why were the people in Belfast not informed about what was going to happen? Why were they not told about all the supposed safeguards? We were told that the animals were coming in sealed lorries; in many cases, that sealing was done with tarpaulin. Many of the tarpaulins did not fit properly, and the lorries were not fully sealed. That was confirmed by the independent vet. Is the Minister aware that there is no effluent plant at that place? All the fluid there flows into the Belfast sewerage system. Do the people of north Belfast not have the right to an explanation, if their health is being put at risk or if there is a risk that the disease might spread? Those are important questions that the Minister must answer clearly.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I cannot take a point of order during questions to the Minister. I will gladly hear it at the end.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The decision on the cull was not taken by Joe Walsh; it was taken jointly by Joe Walsh and me in the interest of the island of Ireland and of the two areas in which there was infection. Joe Walsh had to organise the cull on his side of the border, and I had to organise the cull on my side. It was done following dialogue, as with everything that we have done on this matter. We have acknowledged that the disease does not recognise the border between Louth and south Armagh — unfortunately.
The EU Commission made it clear to us, and showed the wisdom of our decision that whether the virus was clearly present in that area would be a crucial issue in regionalisation. The fact that we were carrying out a cull would, therefore, be an essential part of that decision. It was a case of great minds thinking alike and coming to the right decision.
I am surprised that Dr Paisley seems to have the idea that he was privy to all the discussions that took place at the meeting with the farmers in south Armagh on Thursday. The long and heated discussion on amnesty is news to me. The important thing about that meeting was the outcome. To my mind, the outcome has been for the benefit of the agriculture industry and the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. The outcome was also important for what we are trying to achieve — to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland.
I am the Minister of Agriculture, and I am not aware of any sheep in north Belfast. There are no issues of human health with this. Rendering is happening every day in that area — it is not something that started last Thursday or Friday. The same sewerage system has been there for a while; there is nothing different. However, anything of that nature is a matter for the Department of the Environment, not for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
In relation to my not alerting the people of north Belfast, my view is that if public representatives had been concerned about what was happening, they should have made their concerns known; that would have been very useful. They could have contacted the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, me or my private office, which is open daily, to find out if there really was a human health or a health problem.
Those representatives could then have told the true story, which is that there is no risk to human health; neither is there a problem in spreading the disease. I based everything I did on the advice I received from the Chief Veterinary Officer, who is the expert in these matters.

Mr George Savage: Does the Minister agree that the fact that relaxation measures could be announced this morning is due entirely to the rigorousness with which restrictions have been applied in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that it is at exactly this time, when our guard is slightly relaxed, that there is the real danger?
This virus is of a particularly virulent strain. Japan is an island, and the disease has been kept out of there since 1908, but this virus has still managed to get in. Will the Minister please reinforce the message of continuing vigilance? Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister was very wise in postponing the elections?
I think that the Minister might have been referring to me while she was speaking. May I remind her that I have been involved in farming all my life. I have sat on the Agriculture Committee over the past few weeks listening to veterinary officials saying that this virus is carried in the noses of human beings for at least five to seven days. If it is carried in human beings’ noses, it must surely be able to be carried in animals’ noses.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr Savage that at no stage in my remarks was I referring to him. I also reassure him that whereas the virus is carried in the noses of living people, it is not carried in the noses of dead animals.
I totally agree with the Member about relaxation and confirm his view that because of the measures that we have taken, we have, so far, been successful in our efforts. That is due in particular to the co-operation that we have received from the community — and the farming community especially. I agree with the Member when he says that because things seem to be going reasonably well, it would be dangerous to relax our guard. The danger is really at the farm gate and at the ports of entry, particularly from Great Britain, where, unfortunately, the disease is still raging.
The farm gate is the real point of defence against the disease, and I urge farmers to maintain the fortress farming approach. I also urge people coming into Northern Ireland from Great Britain and the Republic to take all the necessary precautions.
I do not want to comment on the postponement of the elections — that matter is outside my ken.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I congratulate the Minister and her departmental officials on enabling Northern Ireland to be regarded as a designated area — excluding, unfortunately, the Newry and Mourne area, which is part of my constituency. This is no mean achievement in the context of recent events in the rest of United Kingdom, and the House should congratulate the Minister and her Department on a tremendous achievement.
The people, the farmers and the industries of Newry and Mourne are suffering the pain for the rest of Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that. Some of the residents and businesses are 20 to 25 miles away from the main focus of the disease. Will the Minister ensure that relaxation is introduced as soon as possible? I realise that we cannot be complacent, but can she give further details of the relaxations that she hopes to introduce today, and what they will mean?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I appreciate the Member’s remarks about Newry and Mourne, because it is very hard on the people there who have been affected by the problem for some time. It is especially hard on the people who are not in the Meigh area but who are bound by the restrictions on the Newry and Mourne District Council area. They are not able to get their products out of the area because they are in the smallest discrete administrative area that we could identify for the EU. I sympathise with those people.
I assure Mr McGrady that as soon as we reach the thirtieth day after the Meigh outbreak I will vigorously pursue regionalisation for the whole of Northern Ireland, including Newry and Mourne. I understand that, following the further outbreak in County Louth and the announcement that antibodies have been found in a sheep in the Cooley Mountains, that will not be an easy task. However, I still intend to pursue the matter vigorously with the support of the UK Government and Joe Walsh.
On the question of the relaxation of measures, I was very pleased to be able to announce the relaxation on the movement of animals which comes into place today. There were difficulties for farmers in relation to welfare and animal husbandry issues, such as not being able to move sheep for lambing or to move cattle out to grass. Those activities will now be possible. The details will be publicised, and they are now available in the local veterinary offices. The restrictions had previously been relaxed to allow movement up to 5km and this will be now extended to 10km, which will help many farmers. The details will be available for those who need them.

Mr Conor Murphy: A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister said that the case for the removal of the restrictions around Newry and Mourne could be a difficult one for her to win. Will she assure us that if the relaxations are not granted at the end of the 30 days, they will be removed in a matter of days or weeks, and not months, as some people in the locality have suggested? Will she acknowledge the contribution made by the farmers in the south Armagh area in sacrificing their healthy animals to secure the future of the agriculture industry in the rest of the island? Will she continue to press the case for consequential compensation payments? She has had wide- ranging discussions with farmers in that area and the farmers’ unions, and I am sure that there is a huge range of issues that will affect people in the farming community and throughout the island.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I have already stated in response to Mr McGrady, I will be moving immediately, and with the same vigour that I pursued the relaxation for the rest of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the Newry and Mourne area will be made exempt as soon as possible. I acknowledge the contribution of the farmers in south Armagh. I would like to take this opportunity, because of some of the denigration that has gone on, to assure the House that the vast majority of farmers in south Armagh are ordinary decent farmers, as are the farmers in the rest of Northern Ireland who have faced the same problems over the last number of years. They have been anxious to co-operate with me in the past week and are now doing so. I want to place that on record.
Mr Conor Murphy referred to the consequences for the farming community; I realise that there will be consequences. They are, of course, getting full market value for their animals. Also there will be consequences for sectors other than farming. There will be consequences for tourism; there will be consequences, I understand, even for photographers who cannot go to events owing to cancellations. The consequences are endless. I have said in the House that, although I sympathise with the plight in which people find themselves, it would be virtually impossible to pay for the infinite amount of consequential payments out of the Northern Ireland block. I made that point at the Cabinet meeting that I attended some weeks ago with the Prime Minister. Consequential payments will be a matter for the Treasury, and if the British Government were to take the view that consequential payments are to be made, I would expect Northern Ireland farmers to get their share.

Mr David Ford: Does the Minister accept, notwithstanding the personal opinions expressed by Dr Paisley, that many of us — both in the Assembly and in the Agriculture Committee — are grateful to her for the efforts that she and her officials put into solving the difficulties regarding the cull in south Armagh last week? We also wish to add our support to what she said in praising Mr Gilliland and Mr McLaughlin for their efforts. We recognise the genuine sacrifice that people with healthy sheep are making in the same way as farmers in Cumbria, for example, are doing.
What action is the Minister taking from this week to deal with the problem of liquid milk production in the Newry and Mourne area? Can she indicate when she expects to present the case for the abolition of all restrictions in the Newry and Mourne area to the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Ford for his comments. I completely accept that the Agriculture Committee, in particular, and, indeed, the whole Assembly are appreciative. Indeed, the Agriculture Committee left me in no doubt about that when I met with it last Friday. It is not just the Assembly and the Agriculture Committee that are appreciative, and the huge volume of letters that I am receiving from both the Unionist and Nationalist communities shows that people across Northern Ireland are appreciative of our efforts. I really appreciate that because it is good to know that we have the support of the whole community in this difficult time.
I cannot go into details about the liquid milk situation. I know that it is a problem; I know precisely what the Member is referring to. My officials are in discussion with people in that area. We are operating under EU Regulations, and my officials are trying to establish how problems can be dealt with in many sectors, such as the processing industry, as well as in the liquid milk sector. Those discussions are ongoing, so I cannot give a definitive answer on how that issue will be resolved — but it is being dealt with. I may be able to give the Member further information if he contacts my private office.
I have discussed the issue of the Standing Veterinary Committee with my Chief Veterinary Officer — who will be at the next Standing Committee meeting — and with my head of policy; we will be preparing a case. I will also be talking to Joe Walsh — I hope — next Friday, and clearly the South will be preparing a case because it will be looking for relaxation in due course. All of that is being put together, and I hope to mount as effective a case as we did in managing to achieve regionalisation thus far.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Before putting my question, I want to respond to something the Minister said about MLAs. As an MLA for North Belfast, I heard about the movement of sheep to north Belfast through the media, not through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could have informed the six MLAs for the area before making the decision public. We might then have been able to influence the decision. That may not be the Minister’s problem; perhaps it highlights the problem that some MLAs find out about what Departments are doing after the event, rather than before it.
With regard to the processing plant in north Belfast, did the Minister take any advice from the Department of the Environment about the environmental implications? I understand, having spoken to Belfast City Council’s environmental officers, that there was a problem with the wall in what is known as the "chemical scrubbing plant", where these animals would have been — for the want of a better term — power-boiled. The emissions from that site were quite high over recent weeks. Did the Minister ask the Department of the Environment whether this wall had been fixed and whether it stopped the public nuisance? On Friday, when I checked the wind direction with the weather station at Belfast International Airport, I was told that there was a south-easterly wind. That means that any stench coming from those sheep would have gone directly over the houses in north Belfast.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Billy Hutchinson raised a point concerning the Department of the Environment. Drumcrue — I am sorry: that was a slip of the tongue. I nearly said Drumcree. [Laughter] Duncrue is working full-time as a rendering plant. There are no extra environmental impacts in relation to the plant’s handling sheep, nor am I aware of any additional stench coming from sheep. It is the same process that continually takes place in north Belfast — in this case it just happens to involve foot-and-mouth-disease sheep.
I am sorry that Mr Hutchinson feels that perhaps I should have warned him in advance, but this is ongoing every day of the week and every week of the year. Perhaps, with hindsight, it would have been better if I had contacted the North Belfast MLAs to reassure them. However, as this is happening daily, it never occurred to me that such action was necessary.

Mr Paul Berry: I certainly agree with the Minister that there are many decent farmers in south Armagh. I also remind her — though I am sure that she is aware of this — that some farmers have had their bluff called by the Department in the past few days. Can the Minister confirm that there are so-called farmers in south Armagh who have been claiming subsidies for sheep that have not been physically on the farmyards across the area? They have been called "paper sheep". Can the Minister confirm this, and will she and her Department take action in cases where it is found that there are discrepancies between sheep presented for the cull and the numbers that have been claimed for in recent days?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am pleased to note that Mr Berry agrees with me about the farmers in south Armagh, the vast majority of whom are decent — like farmers in the rest of Northern Ireland — and have been going though a very difficult period in recent years.
With regard to his question about "paper sheep", that matter will become evident only when we come to deal with subsidies. I assure the Member that the payment of subsidies will be dealt with this year in exactly the same way as it has been every other year. Incidentally, where "paper sheep" — "paper whatever" — fraud has been found in the past, it has not been confined to south Armagh. There are rogues everywhere — in every profession, in every walk of life, and in every part of Northern Ireland — unfortunately. Fortunately, however, they are a small minority.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the Minister was not referring to any hon Members.

Mr Derek Hussey: I refer to the last section of the Minister’s statement, where she expresses particular concern — and rightly so — about the further importation of this virus. Perhaps I am returning to a question that I placed before the Minister on 12 March. She states that she has concerns about the position in Great Britain. However, she says that her
"major concern now relates to the Republic, where there has been a very recent outbreak and where the risk of further cases must be correspondingly high".
I applaud the Minister for her change in guidelines and for encouraging the tourist industry to return to normality. I know, and the Minister will know, that in the north-west in particular, many tourists will be coming from the Republic of Ireland. Why do we still not have reciprocal arrangements on the land frontiers?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I appreciate Mr Hussey’s concerns. However, I do not know what he means by "reciprocal". I presume he means the same arrangements as in the Republic. We do not have the same situation in Northern Ireland as we have in the Republic, particularly with respect to the security forces, as Mr Hussey will understand.
With regard to ensuring that no animals or products are brought across the border, the policing on the Southern side of the border is not the same as on this side. I reassure Mr Hussey by saying that since we set up the most recent controls, there have been 163 interceptions of the movement of animals by the RUC. Sixty of those interceptions are now being investigated and processed. The fact that you do not see policing does not mean that it is not happening. [Interruption]
I think I heard someone saying "I do not believe it." Clearly, someone does not believe what the RUC is telling me. That is not my problem.
We have put as many officials as possible on border roads, and the RUC is patrolling the area to try to prevent any further infection coming into the Province. However, if farmers in Northern Ireland do not take personal responsibility for their own farms, nothing in this world will keep the virus out. Neither I nor my Department can check every individual in every vehicle that comes into Northern Ireland, nor would I suggest that such policing can be carried out on the other side of the border.
Farmers must not allow people through the farm gate unnecessrarily. People who have been on other farms or who have been in contact with other animals must follow the disinfectant procedures. I hope that farmers are doing that. If these procedures are followed we will not have another case.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister once again for her personal attention in this matter. I cannot recall any Minister in any juridisction in these islands who has repeatedly come back to be questioned from the start of a crisis until the end. Her performance has been first-class. I have no doubt that the people of Newry and Mourne and south Armagh will bear with her and give her absolute support so that this problem can be solved.
When will she publish the type of restrictions that we will be asked to abide by in Newry and Mourne? Can she make the information as widely available as possible, and, if appropriate, can it be put in the various community facilities run by Newry and Mourne District Council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I appreciate that Mr Fee is anxious to co-operate with the restrictions in Newry and Mourne. I hope tomorrow morning to have a meeting with the MLAs from the entire Newry and Mourne area — South Down and Newry and Armagh — so that we can have discussions and I can explain the position to the Members. My veterinary officer will also be present to respond to any questions. I think that is the best way of dealing with the situation.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, Mr Berry’s comments were interesting. Would he prefer that the Minister had the farmers of south Armagh culled, rather than the sheep? The one positive thing about "paper sheep" is that they are easily managed, and they do not contract foot-and-mouth disease. Given that we are likely to have regionalisation in place this week, will the Minister consider the crisis situation building up on farms with regard to day-to-day management?

Mr Speaker: I am having trouble hearing what the Member is asking.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Will the Minister consider the crisis situation building up on farms in relation to farm management and the inability to move livestock? The farm management problem is becoming extremely serious. Will the Minister consider the possibility of farm-to-farm sales, as marts are no longer open and do not appear likely to be opening in the medium term? Something will have to be done to alleviate the management crisis taking place on farms at present, and the Minister seems to be reluctant to tackle it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I hope that Mr McHugh is not condoning "paper sheep".
With regard to the farm management issue, I am not sure whether he is referring to commercial movements, which I presume he may well be, or welfare movements. I have today been able to further relax the restrictions on movement to deal with good health, husbandry and welfare. That will be welcomed by the farming community, as it is a response to the regular discussions that I continue to have with the unions and the industry.
The farm-to-farm movement referred to by Mr McHugh is under review. I regret that Mr McHugh seems to be somewhat critical that I am not responding properly to those concerns, as that is the most dangerous way of spreading the disease. I will do absolutely nothing — repeat: nothing — to take us back to a situation where we might run the risk of bringing foot-and-mouth disease into Northern Ireland. That will be my position at all times. My Chief Veterinary Officer advises me that the adjustments that we are making are meeting the welfare needs that have been put to us by the farming community. Other needs have also been put to us, but the view of my veterinary officials is that that would be a very dangerous move to make now, and I do not intend to move until I feel that it is no longer a risk.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Minister accept that her Department has misled the people of Northern Ireland? The Department claimed that these animals were being moved in sealed trailers. In fact they were moved in articulated tipping lorries with tarpaulins pulled over the top. Those are not sealed units. Those vehicles were driving along the A1, through farms. How were farmers along the A1 supposed to "fortress farm" when the Department was moving sheep from an infected area through their farms?
There is no trade effluent plant within the Duncrue complex. Can the Minister give us guarantees that sewage sludge from Belfast will not be spread over agricultural land? Is she aware that lorries using the Duncrue plant were drawing specified risk material from Ballymena, Dungannon and Newtownards meat plants, and returning to those plants, having been in contact with lorries from the infected area? That was a ludicrous idea. The sheep should have been buried and disposed of in the infected area. The Minister told the Agriculture Committee that cost was one of the factors — it was cheaper to render the sheep than to bury them. Can she confirm that?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank MrPoots for his remarks and questions.
With regard to its being cheaper, that is what I said in response to a question at the Agriculture Committee. I was asked why I was doing this when it would clearly cost more, and I replied simply by saying that actually it is cheaper. I did not for one minute say that we were doing it because it is cheaper. That is slightly twisting what I said.
My officials have assured me that the vehicles carrying sheep carcasses were fluid-proof and safe. I say to MrPoots that I am somewhat surprised at the number of pseudo- vets in Northern Ireland. I take my advice from the experts, the professional vets, who know what they are about and who are extremely anxious to ensure that this disease does not take hold. They have done an excellent job so far and have worked far beyond the call of duty, particularly in the south Armagh area. I am aware that several vets there, at the early stages of this disease, did not even get home to their beds, so hard were they working. They are the people who know what they are about. When they tell me that it is safe to do something, I take their word for it.
The sheep were in sealed vehicles. They did not move through the farms; they moved along the roads. They did not go through the fields.

Mr Edwin Poots: There were farms along the side of the roads.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will explain to MrPoots, for he does not seem to quite understand. Fortress farming is at the farm gate. As my vets tell me, the real danger arises when somebody goes onto a farm and is in contact with farm animals. Lorries moving along the road, with carcasses sealed inside, are not going near farm animals or farm land. They are going along the road.
With regard to the specified risk material, I have to admit that I am not quite sure what MrPoots is talking about. I will have a written reply for him in due course.

John Taylor: Foot-and-mouth disease affects all of us in Northern Ireland. It is a major problem, and in no way should any party try to make it a party political issue. I commend the Minister yet again for the way in which she is handling this matter, which is appreciated right across all businesses in Northern Ireland, including the farming industry.
I want to ask the Minister about the antibodies found in sheep in Cooley, CountyLouth. Does this imply that they had already suffered from foot-and-mouth disease and that the Southern Irish authorities had failed to detect it? I would like to know more about what is behind the emergence of antibodies in sheep in CountyLouth.
I ask the Minister, although it is not primarily her responsibility, whether, if the good news continues in Northern Ireland and we make progress after Thursday, all Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will be in a position to launch a major publicity campaign to promote Northern Ireland’s agricultural products and its tourist industry?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank MrTaylor for his remarks, with which I absolutely agree. I thank him for making the point that this is not a time to be making party political points or trying to take cheap party political advantage. It is far too serious a situation.
The answer to his first question is yes. This clearly indicates the importance of finalising the cull in that area to ensure that where there is any chance of the infection being present, or having been present, in sheep — and that is the most difficult to discover — the animals are culled as a precaution.
The Executive are considering a publicity campaign. There will be wider issues than those that relate to the agriculture industry. On matters related to agriculture, I have asked the vision group, which was set up to examine the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland and to work out a long-term strategy, to appoint a subcommittee which would look at the implications of what has happened and make an addendum to its report. As the Member has stated, it is important that we learn lessons from this and look at what we need to do from now on.

Mr P J Bradley: I compliment the Minister and her team on their tireless efforts to deal with the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. The Minister must be the busiest lady in Ireland — she is certainly the busiest politician in the country.
The House will share my hope that we have contained the disease that broke out around Meigh in Armagh and Proleek in Louth. Given the cross-border dimension to the problem, can the Minister say when she will next meet her Southern counterpart at formal North/South Ministerial Council level?

Ms Brid Rodgers: A formal meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council has been arranged for next Friday; it will take place in Dublin. The only issue on the agenda will be foot-and-mouth disease. All related issues will be discussed and decisions will, we hope, be made about how we should proceed.

Mr Pat Doherty: To what extent has the lorry driver from Banbridge, who brought the sheep to Meigh, co-operated with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development? Is it true, as reported in the media at the weekend, that his lorry stopped at other farms and marts at the time of the Meigh delivery?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have already put it on record that one of our biggest problems was that we did not have full co-operation from the person — indeed, the persons — concerned. The Member will be aware that the matter is now under investigation and that the driver is being questioned. In the circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment any further.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Members will note the Minister’s comments on the proposed anti-disease group. Can she tell us a little about the group? We need to know the who, what, where and when. We hope that the group will be considerably more successful than the anti-disease measures taken heretofore.
Can the Minister tell us what approaches were made to her by people seeking an amnesty, either for themselves or for others? We know what her response was, but we should know who sought the amnesty. There are no cases pending before the courts, no arrests have been made and no prosecutions are ongoing. Can the Minister assure the House that people will be prosecuted to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen to our agriculture industry again?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I was talking about the vision group, and my response to the Member is exactly the same as that which I gave to Mr Taylor. I have asked the vision group to set up a subgroup. I do not know what the Member means by saying that the group must be better than it was in the past. There never was a group working on foot-and-mouth disease; there was a group considering the future of the agriculture industry and working out a strategy for the future. The report of that group was due on 6 March, but that has been put on hold because of the foot-and-mouth-disease problem. I have asked the group to set up a subgroup to consider the implications of what has happened in the past five weeks and make recommendations. I considered that wise.
The Member may be aware that the only approach that was made to me on the matter of amnesty was made via an ad-hoc committee that was set up in south Armagh. I was able to address some of their concerns, but I made it clear that I would not be prepared to address others. I said that I would not make promises that I could not or would not keep.
Prosecutions will be a matter for the RUC. Investigations are proceeding and I cannot respond on behalf of the RUC as to whether or not prosecutions will take place. However, I assure the Member that the Department will co-operate fully with the RUC, which may lead to people being brought to task for their wrongdoings.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. She has outlined this morning that she will move to lift the controls on the Newry and Mourne area as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, she has alarmingly said
"However, that will not be an easy case to win."
Can she expand on that? Farmers and people throughout Newry and Mourne will want to see the restrictions lifted as quickly as possible.
I also welcome the Minister’s statement on the issue of the amnesty. However, can she spell out the compensation procedure, which involves an appeal? Who conducts that appeal? Is it genuinely independent? Will it not come under any external pressure to give benefit to those who had been seeking amnesty on other issues?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As regards Mr Kennedy’s remarks about Newry and Mourne, I appreciate his concerns as he is an MLA from that area.
When I said that it would not be easy, I was referring to various factors. First, the disease has spread within some European countries already. Secondly, there has been a new case in County Louth subsequent to the one we had in the Meigh area. Finally, there was the discovery of sheep with antibodies. Those issues will make the Commission and the Standing Veterinary Committee nervous when we go to seek a lifting of the ban. Knowing how difficult it was to get regionalisation at this stage, I am not underestimating the difficulties ahead. We may have to wait until the 30-day period following the Proleek outbreak is over. All those things have been conveyed to me as possibilities. I assure Mr Kennedy that I will do everything possible, along with my officials, to ensure that the restriction is lifted on Newry and Mourne as soon as is humanly possible.
With regard to the compensation procedure in the south Armagh area, I will reiterate what I have said publicly. The compensation will be at full market value as assessed by departmental valuers. If farmers are unhappy with that, they have access to one of three named independent valuers. That is the position. It is the same as the position in relation to the original slaughters in the Meigh area and indeed to slaughtering in the UK and the Republic.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I asked her a question some weeks ago about the spreading of animal blood on agricultural land. To date, I have not received an answer. Is the practice to be outlawed? If not, can she explain why a farmer in Rosslea told me the other day that the price of a kill has gone up by almost £5 in order to pay for the additional cost of landfill for blood and animal waste?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As regards the first part of Ms Gildernew’s question, it is not a risk. It seems to me that landfill might be a commercial issue. If prices rise, it is a commercial issue, and one that I cannot deal with.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Will the Minister tell the House if her discussions with south Armagh farmers were designed to organise the logistics of the extended cull or to avoid a showdown with IRA/Sinn Féin in the run-up to the elections?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mrs Robinson for the question, although I do not entirely understand it. I assure the Member that everything I have done since the beginning of this crisis has been with one view in mind — to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. I have not had any other consideration at any time. I am pleased that the outcome in south Armagh was that I could proceed with the necessary cull — bearing in mind what Mr Taylor said about the presence of antibodies and my reply to him. My answer to Mrs Robinson’s question is that at all times my only consideration was to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. So far, with the co-operation of the whole community, including farmers, we together have been successful. I hope to continue along those lines.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the Minister’s relaxation of the movement of livestock under licence. This is due to the vigilant actions of farmers who have maintained fortress farms and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development staff who have manned the border. Everyone draws comfort from each passing day that is free from new cases of foot-and-mouth disease. There can be no relaxation on Northern Ireland’s borders with the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom.
Will the Minister tell the House how many sheep were disposed of during the previous week in the cull at the border? Is she sure that there are no sheep left in that area, lest there be another case of foot-and-mouth disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question and his obvious concern. With regard to movement under licence, Mr Armstrong was one of the people breaking down my door during the previous week to ensure that that movement was permitted. I am pleased that I have been able to respond to him and others who made those same concerns known to me. I also appreciate his remarks that there can be no relaxation and that we must keep up our guard.
With regard to the final figures, I must say that those numbers are not yet available, because the cull has not been completed. As soon as I have them, I will make them available to Mr Armstrong in writing. I am pleased to say that as far as I know the cull will be completed today in time for regionalisation tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: As there are no further requests for questions, that brings an end to questions to the Minister on her statement. We now move to the motion on the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and the Assembly have agreed to the convention that in subject matter debates or questions the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of the relevant Committees will have speaking preferences with regard to questions and/or comments. This is done on the understanding that the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is speaking on behalf of the Committee. Will you rule to that effect, and will you predetermine in that ruling whether the said Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is speaking in a personal, party or Committee capacity? If in a capacity other than the last, will you ensure that he or she does not receive precedence?

Mr Speaker: In respect of Committee Chairmen’s and Deputy Chairmen’s speaking opportunities, there is an element of precedence where there is a relevant Committee and the Chairman or Deputy Chairman indicates that he wishes to speak in that capacity. I sometimes have to balance that with the wishes of party Whips, because occasionally they too have a view on the order of contributors from their parties. In general terms, however, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman will speak first.
If a Chairman or Deputy Chairman chooses to speak in a personal capacity, he or she does not take precedence. In that respect the Member is quite right.
However, it is recognised that there are occasions when a Chairman or Deputy Chairman may speak on behalf of his Committee but also properly make other remarks. In those circumstances he should indicate which remarks are being made in a personal capacity, for he cannot be called a second time.

Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme

Ms Brid Rodgers: I beg to move
That the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2001 (Statutory Rule 2001 No 90) be approved.
Members will need no reminding of the difficulties which the pig industry here has had to endure over the past few years, to say nothing of the current added effects of the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. I hope that Members will also need no reminding of the efforts that I have been making to try to secure the introduction of an aid package for pig producers at the earliest possible date. Members will also be aware that the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme has two elements. The Regulations referred to in the motion relate to the second element for on-goers — that is those people wishing to remain in the industry.
The control provisions needed for on-goers required subordinate legislation, made under two separate pieces of primary legislation. These have different powers and, although the controls are identical, it meant that we had to make two statutory rules — one by negative resolution in the usual way and the other by confirmatory resolution on the part of the Assembly. Both rules are similar in providing for controls on the payment of grant-aid over a two-year period in respect of interest rebates on loans for expenditure incurred in restructuring a pig production business.
Such expenditure can relate to either capital or non- capital, but the primary power to regulate for such payments on capital expenditure requires the rule to be confirmed by the Assembly. It will cease to have effect unless approved by a resolution of the Assembly within 40days of 30March, the date on which it came into operation. This rule and the equivalent one for non-capital expenditure provide the necessary legal basis for my Department to approve applications under the on-goers’ part of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. This is very important as, although no payment can be made for oneyear after an application is approved, we must have evidence that interest has been paid to the lending institution, and we wish to be able to make those payments as soon as that anniversary is reached. The confirmation of this rule by the Assembly will ensure that this hurdle does not exist, and I hope that Members can therefore agree to confirm the rule today.
I emphasise that these rules are important, but, essentially, controlled provisions will allow the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme to benefit pig producers here. Accordingly, I decided that it was not necessary to prepare regulatory impact, human rights or equality impact assessments or to undertake any public consultation. I invite the Assembly to confirm its approval of the rule identified in the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am speaking as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, and there will be no gagging of the Chairperson just because minorities in the Committee cannot have their way. MrMcGrady had better get his act together and get the two members from his party in absolute agreement before he comes attacking me in the House.
The great thing about the system here is that nobody can remove the Chairperson of a Committee. The agreement that the Member entered into to keep Nationalists and Republicans in place covers me too. If Members want to remove me they will have great bother doing so. It is ridiculous that petty statements are made because minorities cannot have their way. My Committee, by a majority vote, gives me the right to speak. However, on this matter there is unanimity, so I am speaking for the whole Committee. Of course, sometimes members are not there when decisions are made or they do not even express themselves when decisions are taken.
When the proposal for the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme was brought to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on 2 March members questioned a department official on the details. As a result, the Committee was content for the Department to proceed with making the rule that is now before the House.
In reconstructing their pig production business, many farmers — and this is a concern of the Agriculture Committee — face huge capital expenditure costs which can only be met by taking out loans. The restructuring scheme provides for the payment of grants towards the cost of such loans. The scheme is welcome and it provides a lifeline in these difficult times as long as those farmers who seek it are accepted into the scheme.
Figures have been bandied about concerning how many applications were made to the scheme and how many were accepted. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has got no confirmation as yet from the Minister on those figures. The Committee is not content with that. It has asked officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to attend its meeting on 6 April so that members — and this was a resolution of the whole Committee — can question them to see if this is going to be effectual. Many people want to get into the scheme but some have already been told that they are not accepted. It is important that they are given another chance. It is also important that the ratio of applications to successes, 500:80, is changed and that the pig farmers who are in difficulty can benefit from the scheme.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the scheme that the Minister has introduced. It is an indication of a vote of confidence from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to the agriculture industry, and especially to the farmers.
Will the Minister give details of the take-up of the scheme that enables pig farmers to leave the industry and will she tell the House if that take-up has been lower than expected? Many telephone calls to me suggest that that was the case, so will the Minister tell the House how much money is left in the kitty and how much money is available for the restructuring of the scheme?
The scheme is UK-wide, and other areas are involved, but surely there was a designated amount of money for Northern Ireland. How much of that money has been used, and what contingency plans are in place for making the remainder available to more pig farmers?
With two experienced politicians — one on each side of me — I have to be careful how I proceed, but I welcome the loans scheme for pig farmers. In these days when the agriculture industry has come through crisis after crisis it is an opportunity for the pig industry to restructure, for the out-goers scheme to be successful, and for those who want to stay in the industry to do so. I congratulate the Minister and I will support her 100% in any way possible.
The agriculture industry must modernise and unless it goes forward as a modern agriculture industry, Northern Ireland cannot compete with its counterparts across the water. People must realise that we are part and parcel of Europe. It is hoped that the Minister will see fit to broaden the outlook of the loan scheme to cover other areas. Time will tell as to the major difficulties that will be faced by the agriculture industry due to foot-and-mouth disease.
I hope that, in time, the Minister will broaden her outlook and take those things on board.

Mr P J Bradley: I too support the motion. Cattle-related matters have dominated the agriculture agenda, so it is good to know that back at the ranch people were working in the interests of the pig industry, because it is very much part of our history. I will not give into the temptation of rehashing much of what was said about farming debt and about restoring profit to the pig industry. I support the capital grant scheme. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee has said, it is long overdue. The on-goers will welcome it, and I thank the Minister for moving this motion this morning.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee agrees that this scheme is overdue. It is also a welcome opportunity for people who previously missed out on the wider scheme. There are many difficulties with funding, and there is the possibility that it may not do what it was intended to do and help farmers. Those involved in the fishing industry have also found that the scheme is so complicated that it is difficult to say whether it will benefit those who are most in need of it in the long term. This is due to a lack of information and to delays on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in delivering and implementing the schemes.
These are the main problems that farmers face. In this instance, they have to decide if they want to, and need to, get out of the industry. They have not always had the information to allow them to do that. They have to decide if they want to leave the industry permanently, although a son may want to get into the industry in the next few years. These are all very difficult decisions. A farm has to be taken out of the business of pig production completely even if there is a possibility that it may become profitable in the future.
Farmers must decide whether to go for the scheme or to try to have a future as a pig farmer. Whether we have a future as an area that produces pig meat, or we just give in and allow imports, has an impact on the overall economy. Our debt reports have shown that most of the difficulties that farmers faced were beyond and outside the farm gate. That includes the BSEcrisis and now foot- and-mouth disease, which may be the deciding factor for many farmers on whether they remain in the industry.
We have covered most of the arguments regarding the ‘Restoring Profit for the Beef Producer’ report. There are similar arguments in the pig industry, which was very strong in all counties 20years ago. Most of that industry, certainly from the area that I come from, is no longer there. You could count on one hand the number of people who are involved in pig production in Fermanagh, and a number of years ago every second farm was involved in it. The pig industry now faces the foot-and-mouth disease, and pig farmers must decide whether they have a future.
We are also losing other aspects of farm production such as beef. This is due to the impact of the power of people outside the farm gate — the supermarkets and the processors — and how they deal with farmers. The reports that we published have several recommendations for putting this right. Some of the recommendations point to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s taking a proactive role in helping farmers who remain in the pig industry to have a future. Malton Foods and others have stood firmly against any moves towards strengthening the hand of the individual. That difficulty may be overcome if farmers can remove the fear of trying to stand against large corporate organisations that work for profit, try to stifle all opposition and create a total monopoly over the profit of an industry.
At present, those outside the farm gate have the power. When farmers are making an income of approximately £22 each and everyone else is talking about the massive economic impact in relation to farming, it shows who is making the money and the profit and who is being excluded entirely from this. It is up to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in particular, to do its best and to work with the farm groups that want to move to a position of strengthening their base.
I support the motion because it allows progress and allows farmers to go for money at this point. Previously, they were afraid to move because they lacked the information to make a decision.

Mr Gardiner Kane: The benefits of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and the length of delay can all be measured best and most accurately by the number of producers who have been forced from the industry. I accept that the blame for such delays in the introduction of support lies with the United Kingdom Minister and with Mr Fischler in Brussels. Delay in supporting, during crisis, any of our farming sectors is increasingly becoming the norm. However, for those producers suffering the collapse or manipulation of their markets, this is of little comfort.
The pig industry has, without support from subsidies, endured the rigour of what has often been a very uncertain market for its product. I pay tribute to those who have remained in production against impossible odds. That said, a strategically targeted £400,000 grant at this stage might have a positive impact on those who have managed to remain in production. Further developments involving Government funding for producer co-operatives would have attracted much support, both within the industry and from many members of the Agriculture Committee. In order to bring the price of Northern Irish pork into line with the United Kingdom mainland, a level of financial commitment from Government, however costly in the interim, could prove one of the only alternatives.
Regarding price differentials, I share the view of the producers that explorations of the impact of swine fever and the more extensive downsizing of the pig herd on the mainland are the factors that explain the higher prices for pigs across the water. The Ballymoney fire has had an enormous impact on the prices paid to producers, but so has the procurement of pigs in the Republic. Tie in those factors with the disadvantage of Northern Ireland’s greater input costs and the fact that a level playing field of animal welfare Regulations does not exist, and the stage is set for the extinction of the pig industry. United Kingdom pig producers have been forced to accept the stall-and-tether ban in advance of other EU states, which has imposed costs on the industry that it cannot afford in the current circumstances.
This welcome, but late, injection of cash for restructuring the pig industry, involving the development of marketing structures and improving quality, is welcomed by the industry. However, it must be seen in the context of the current difficulties, and I urge the Minister not to rule out the provision of cash to fund a new co-operative initiative in the future.

Mr Edwin Poots: The pig industry has faced many difficulties in the past few years, and many farmers find themselves with debts that outstrip their assets. To this end, the on-goers scheme must be welcomed as a step in the right direction. There are other steps that many of us would like to have seen included. Nonetheless, we welcome the steps that have been taken in the interim.
I have a number of questions arising from this issue. Mr Savage said that there may not have been a full uptake of the on-goers scheme. If that is true, is it possible for money from that scheme to be put towards the out-goers scheme where it appears that there has been a higher take up? I understand that many farmers have applied to the out-goers scheme and have been rejected. I want to question the role of the Department in that.
Farmers had to pay £350 plus VAT to get their animals valued. It has also been claimed that those who applied to the out-goers’ scheme were told at meetings held by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that they should do it on a 10-year basis. Yet the vast majority of those who listened to the Department’s advice have had their schemes rejected. What opportunity is there for those people to reapply? Is there any advice that can be given before they go down that road to ensure that they will get finance from the out-goers scheme?

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Member agree that we do not have the details of how those people who have not been accepted for this scheme can be included in a second phase? Does he agree that it is a problem that farmers who applied for this scheme were told by the Department that they should apply for the full amount of money and, when they did, they were then refused? That is one of the concerns that pig farmers have about this issue.

Mr Edwin Poots: I agree.
I know that the Minister is busy with the foot-andmouth-disease crisis. Believe it or not, we are sympathetic to the Minister. The fact that we ask awkward questions does not mean that we are trying to get at her. However, our constituents are concerned about the issues we are raising on their behalf. There are 500 farmers out there, and 420 of them are not very happy. It would be useful if the Minister could make a statement to the House at some stage on the out-goers scheme. It would be appropriate if the Minister could set out what has happened so far and the way forward as the Department sees it and allow the House the opportunity to ask questions about it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I would like to thank all Members for their contributions. I understand the concerns that many of them have about this scheme, which was long in gestation.
With regard to Dr Paisley’s comments, the applications accepted were based on a UK-wide tendering process. That meant we had to accept the cheapest bids. There could not be any question of regional shares for Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, but I can confirm that the out-goers’ bids so far show that Northern Ireland has received approximately the proportion that we should have, based on sow numbers. That may well not be proportionate to our problem, but it is proportionate to our sow numbers.
Taking Mr Savage’s points next, I have already said that we will get our share based on applications to date. There will be a second chance for others in the mark II out-goers scheme. The Member asked me to broaden my mind regarding the loans scheme. I think that my mind has always been pretty broad, but in relation to loans scheme, there is the little matter of the EU state aids regulations.
12.00
With regard to comments made by Mr Savage and Mr McGrady, the next issue is the need for a grant scheme for Northern Ireland pig farmers. I have said many times that I cannot hand money out without EU state aids approval. Although I would like to do that, it would be illegal. As Members will know from my remarks earlier today, I am not prepared to act illegally for the pig farmers or for any other farmers. I thank Mr Bradley for his comments and his support for this scheme.
Mr McHugh raised a number of issues. I accept that the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is complicated. That was necessary in order to satisfy the EU that we are not simply handing out money to farmers who might go and increase their pig production, which would be adding to our problems. My officials have tried to help farmers to comply with the scheme and are happy to continue to do so. Mr McHugh’s point about co-operatives is noted, but it was merely an observation rather than a question. It has been made in the past by many people, including Mr McHugh.
I fully agree with Mr Kane’s comments regarding the delay in approving the restructuring scheme. The delay was both inexcusable and frustrating, both for me as Minister and also for the people who are waiting for it. However, neither Nick Brown nor myself were in the driving seat on this. I have pressed Mr Brown on numerous occasions to exert pressure on the European Commission to speed it up. The other points made by Mr Kane about the cost of stalls and tethers are points that have been made in the past. I have dealt with them before.
I am grateful for Mr Poots’s welcome for the restructuring scheme. It is not possible or, indeed, necessary to reallocate cash from the on-goers scheme to out-goers. The budget that we have is the maximum available. Many of the bids were low, thus allowing us to achieve the reductions at a lower price. Mr Shannon asked whether unsuccessful bidders in the out-goers scheme could reapply. The answer is that they can.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2001 (Statutory Rule 2001 No 90) be approved.

Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the draft Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.
We are here today to debate the Regulations that propose to change the existing law on the audit of company accounts. They are made under the powers in article 265 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The purpose of this proposal is threefold. First, to raise the threshold for audit exemption from its current level of £350,000 to £1 million. We are concerned that the Regulations placed on businesses not be overly burdensome, particularly to our smaller businesses. Hence, the Regulations we are debating today will reduce those burdens.
In the light of consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry in London, we are persuaded that the balance of argument favours moving the turnover threshold for audit to £1 million a year figure as a first step. We are aware that the independent company law review is specifically addressing whether some other, less burdensome form of assurance could replace the full audit for companies with an annual turnover of between £1 million and £4·8 million. That is the maximum turnover figure permitted under European rules. The review will make its final recommendation on this "lighter touch" independent assurance later this year. We have not as yet taken a view on this.
Secondly, the Regulations simplify the law relating to dormant companies — that is, companies which are still on the register but which have had no significant accounting transactions during the period. They dispense with the requirement that dormant companies must pass a special resolution to gain exemption from audit, but they do allow one if 10% or more shareholders so require. The Regulations allow certain payments required of all companies to be made to the Companies Registry while status remains dormant.
Thirdly, the Regulations require that a dormant company acting as an agent for a third party must disclose its agency status in its annual accounts.
There is little doubt that these proposals will be warmly welcomed by the business community as a means of getting rid of burdens and removing unnecessary irritations. I want to emphasise also that the changes reflect a careful assessment of the relative costs and benefits.
It may help if I give some explanation of how we reached our conclusions. Regarding the audit exemption and the background to it, I turn first to the increase in the threshold. The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 introduced a requirement that all companies should not only file their accounts with Companies Registry, but that those accounts should be accompanied by a report signed by a registered independent auditor.
On three occasions in the 1980s the Department of Trade and Industry in London consulted on whether the audit requirement should be kept for all companies. On each occasion it was decided to retain the status quo.
The first cautious step was taken in 1995, with the exemption of very small private companies from the audit, while those with turnovers of between £90,000 and £350,000 were given the option of filing a similar report in place of the full audit report. This regime was considered unsatisfactory and was abolished in 1997. The current position is, therefore, that only companies with a turnover of above £350,000 are subject to a full statutory audit.
The typical cost of an audit for a business with a turnover of around £1 million is between £1,000 and £1,500. With regard to the effects of amending the audit Regulations, we estimate that the increase in the threshold to £1 million will enable approximately 3,000 more Northern Ireland companies to take advantage of exemption from audit, leading to annual savings of £3 million to £4·5 million. Research suggests, however, that only half of the companies eligible to take advantage of exemption might be expected to do so. In that case, annual savings would be between £1·5 million and £2·25 million. The important point is that those companies will have a choice to make in the light of their own particular circumstances.
The proposals change neither the existing minority shareholders’ safeguard that 10% of shareholders can require an audit, nor the treatment of groups of companies, where a parent or a subsidiary company may take advantage of the exemption only if the total turnover of the group does not exceed the threshold for individual company exemptions. The Regulations also preserve the existing separate regime for charities.
If approved by Assembly Members, the new threshold will apply for financial periods ending two months or more after the Regulations come into operation.
Regarding dormant companies, article 260 of the 1986 Companies Order draws a distinction between those companies which are actively trading and those which are not. We estimated that some 2,000 companies have dormant status — often incorporated to protect a company or brand name, or whose only purpose is to own an asset, such as the freehold of a building. Many dormant companies are in groups and would not otherwise be eligible for audit exemption. In March 1999 the Department of Trade and Industry published a consultative document on the legislative framework for dormant companies, which set out proposals to reduce the costs involved in running a dormant company. A large majority of respondents agreed with the proposals for simplification of the law.
On the proposals concerning agent companies, most respondents agreed that where a dormant company acted as an agent for another company, some action was needed to make it clear to a third party.
It is certainly legal to act in this way, but it can be confusing or misleading to a third party. Just over half agreed with the proposal that companies acting as agents should be required to declare their agency status in an annual report.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the consultation by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on these proposals has led to a package of measures which are practical and appropriate, which relieve unnecessary burdens on smaller companies and which have the broad support of the business community. I can confirm that in my view the amendments to the 1986 Order proposed in these Regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In our modern economy, small companies are increasingly the vehicles of sustained economic growth and job creation. It is therefore vital that we reduce unnecessary burdens on them. The Regulations are a significant step in that direction. They help to make an appropriate and equitable regulatory framework for business.
I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The pertinent phrase was in the last sentence or two — "reduce unnecessary burdens". The proposals that he has outlined make sense, and a serious or legal audit should only be required where it is absolutely necessary. In my view, a full audit is certainly not essential for small businesses with a turnover of less than £1million. Such a company will still have to do its accounts, but the problem has been the legalities and obligations imposed on it. The Minister mentioned a figure of between £1,000 and £1,500 as a possible audit figure. However, in my experience, the cost can be between £3,000 and £4,000 by the time all the documents are completed and all the Regulations that go along with the audit are complied with. The protection still exists through the suggestion that 10% of a minority shareholding can seek an audit if it is required or if there is any suggestion of underhand dealing.
The Regulations will remove a threat, burden and responsibility from small companies and allow them to get on with doing what they do best. It is up to them to meet the bookkeeping requirements. Companies will still have a choice. The Regulations proposed by the Minister are very commendable, and I hope that in the future we can look at methods of further reducing the burden on small businesses.
As the Minister has rightly suggested, even in the large US economy, growth is taking place in the small business sector, for example, where 10-person companies are expanding to become 20-person companies. The growth is not taking place at multinational level because those companies have grown almost as much as they can. This is a good start, but I urge the Minister not to leave this where he has left it today. Rather he should look at other technical means of reducing the burdens of bureaucracy and bookkeeping and the other stresses on small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy.

Mr Jim Wells: I broadly welcome the proposals made by the Minister. If he manages during his tenure of office to cut through much of the red tape that burdens small companies in Northern Ireland, he will have done something which will make a contribution to the economic development of the Province and provide new jobs.
I well remember starting out in life as an accountant. I realised that I found it as interesting as being an undertaker and that it was not for me. After three or four months in — I will not name the company —

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: He got sacked.

Mr Jim Wells: I certainly was not sacked. I discovered that I was not a number cruncher, so I gave up.
During that time — 25years ago — I carried out audits at very small companies. Although SirRegEmpey has said that the average cost of an audit for a small company is between £1,000 and £1,500, that is not a true picture. I recall the amount of work and staff time that companies had to devote to having the paperwork ready for our arrival. Therefore the real cost, including that of staff time, is much higher than £1,500.
I welcome the fact that the limit for a compulsory audit has been raised from £350,000 to £1million. This could free 3,000 companies from the burden of an audit. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee brought departmental officials to one of its meetings and questioned them closely about this, and we were satisfied that this was a good move. I am also content because I do not feel that an audit system for a small company works. The number of cases of skulduggery unveiled through an audit is very small. I asked the officials to tell me when a company was last prosecuted as a result of the findings of an auditor, and nobody could remember. Therefore, the audit of small companies seems to be a totally unnecessary piece of red tape which is burdening those companies and achieving nothing. I also welcome the removal of the need for a special exemption motion for dormant companies.
Representatives of small businesses, in a recent presentation to the Assembly, said that the two factors that drag down the expansion of small companies in Northern Ireland are red tape and bank charges. If the Minister can make a dent in those two problems, he will achieve real growth in this economy because, as the hon Member for South Belfast, DrMcDonnell said, the real potential for increased employment in the Province is through small companies.
According to a fascinating statistic in the United States, the country’s top 100 companies have had a net gain of nil in employment there. The huge surge in economic growth in the United States has been almost entirely in the field of small companies with fewer than 500 staff. In that country, one of the main reasons for that has been the cutting of red tape and the ending of unnecessary bureaucracy. If this is a step in the right direction, it is very much to be welcomed.

Sir Reg Empey: I have listened carefully to hon Members’ comments, and I thank them. This is a deregulatory measure. I appreciate that much of what the Government ask the private sector to do constitutes a direct charge on those companies because time is money. However, it is essential that we find out certain pieces of information in order to provide a service, though we have been searching the entire system for ways to reduce the burden. I take the point that DrMcDonnell and MrWells made about the costs involved. The figures quoted here are, I suppose, the sort of invoice figure that you might expect, but, as Members have said, they do not take into account management time and preparation et cetera.
I would not want the impression to be given that we are trying to relieve companies of the requirement to produce accounts, because companies need to know what is happening for their own benefit. In many cases lenders require certain information, and it may very well be that lenders will require audits. If that is the case, it is a matter for an individual company, but some small companies do not require this audit and there has been no significant evidence of large-scale fraud. The proposal is, therefore, appropriate.
Members may ask why we do not go further. We may go further, but we will wait for the outcome of the review. MrWells also referred to bank charges. I attended a recent seminar in the Long Gallery at which these matters were highlighted. I am very conscious of them and, at the moment, we are considering approaching the banks. One gentleman who was at that seminar earns a living by saving his clients from losing money through bank charges. This would not be possible if overcharging did not take place. How else could he make a living out of saving companies’ money?
Something is not quite right, and that will have to be followed up vigorously. As Mr Wells said, any charge on a company is money directly off the bottom line; it is money that is not available to reinvest or available for research or any form of development. Therefore we are obliged to try to find ways of simplifying matters and assisting these companies. This would be far better than having to go through a complicated grant procedure that involves significant costs to the public and even further regulation. If we can make things more cost- effective, everybody will benefit. I hope these Regulations will make a good start.
If I have not responded to all relevant questions, I will pick them up later. I appreciate the support voiced by the Committee and other hon Members for these measures which I hope will make some small contribution to the added efficiency of many of our small businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Assembly Commissioner for Standards

Mr Donovan McClelland: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the findings and conclusions contained in the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges — ‘Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards’ (01/00/R) — and calls for all appropriate arrangements to be put in place by the Assembly Commission, the Speaker’s Office and other relevant Assembly Committees to ensure implementation of the recommendations.
As Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I am pleased to bring before the Assembly the Committee’s first report, which contains the findings and conclusions stemming from its inquiry into the possible appointment of an Assembly commissioner for standards. I am particularly pleased that the report enjoys the unanimous support of the Committee, and I am grateful to the members of the Committee for their assistance, hard work and contribution. I also thank the various witnesses, most of whom were from legislatures throughout the British Isles, who attended the Committee to provide oral evidence.
Following its establishment on 15 December 1999, the Committee received several complaints from Assembly Members about the conduct of other Members. The Committee carried out initial investigations of these complaints, but it soon became apparent that the investigation process had certain limitations and disadvantages. It was unclear what constituted a complaints investigation, and there was no provision for detailed investigations. The Committee was not empowered to decide what further action the Assembly should take when a complaint was upheld. Despite its powers to investigate, the fact that the Committee had no clear sanctions or penalties to recommend to the Assembly in that event tended to limit its operation and effectiveness.
It was against this background that in June 2000 the Committee resolved to undertake an inquiry into the possible appointment of an Assembly commissioner for standards who would be responsible for investigating complaints against Members of the Assembly. In the course of this inquiry the Committee considered and reported on the role and responsibilities of an Assembly commissioner for standards; his or her relationship with the Committee; the arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee to the Assembly; the powers of, and sanctions that could be recommended by, the Committee; and the impact of the Committee’s findings on the Standing Orders of the Assembly.
In conducting the inquiry, the Committee heard evidence from a wide range of individuals from Parliaments, Assemblies and other organisations with experience and expertise in parliamentary standards and privileges and the parliamentary investigation of complaints.
The Committee took evidence from, among others, representatives of the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Welsh Assembly’s Independent Adviser on Standards of Conduct, the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee and the Dáil Éireann’s Select Committee on Members’ Interests. The Committee also examined several systems for dealing with complaints against parliamentarians in a wide range of Parliaments, Assemblies, and legislatures in different countries. I shall outline the Committee’s key findings and conclusions in each of the areas that I mentioned. Some of my Committee Colleagues will speak in greater detail about the issues arising from the inquiry.
The fundamental issue considered by the Committee was whether it would be appropriate, in principle and in practice, to recommend to the Assembly that a commissioner for standards should be appointed to investigate complaints against Members. The Committee was mindful of the problems and difficulties that it had encountered while investigating the small number of complaints against Members that were referred to it. The evidence given by several witnesses reinforced those concerns.
Most witnesses were strongly in favour of having some kind of system to investigate complaints against Members that was independent of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. One reason put forward was that it was important for the credibility of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and of the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that complaints against Members were investigated — and seen to be investigated — in a fair, unbiased and non-party- political way. It was also felt that the establishment of an independent investigative process would increase public confidence in the commitment of the Committee and the Assembly to ensuring the maintenance of high levels of probity on the part of Members in conducting their affairs as public representatives, inside and outside the Assembly.
The Committee concluded that it should recommend to the Assembly that a commissioner for standards be appointed to investigate complaints against Members. If the Assembly endorses the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a commissioner for standards, we shall approach the Assembly Commission to discuss the process of recruiting a commissioner and decide on the terms and conditions of employment associated with such an appointment. I urge the Commission to work closely with the Committee to make an appointment as soon as possible.
Having determined the need for a commissioner for standards, the Committee felt that the primary role of the commissioner should be to investigate complaints against Members. It is anticipated that the type of complaints that would be referred to the commissioner for standards would routinely include matters relating to alleged breach of privilege; specific complaints about Members in relation to the registration or declaration of interests; and matters relating to the conduct of Assembly Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of the Assembly’s code of conduct. To ensure the effectiveness of the commissioner, the Committee agreed that, if necessary, it would use its powers under Standing Orders to send for persons, papers and records.
The Committee, in considering the role and responsibility of a commissioner for standards, focused directly on the importance of having an independent means of investigating complaints against Members. That is crucial if Members are to be sure that complaints against them will be investigated in an impartial and non-party-political way. The Committee also considered that the appointment of a commissioner to investigate complaints would promote the credibility and integrity of the investigative process, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Committee decided that the limited role proposed for the Assembly commissioner for standards should be subject to review in the light of experience. However, the Committee did not rule out an extension of the commissioner’s role and responsibilities to include making recommendations about sanctions and penalties, advising and guiding Members on the registration and declaration of interests, and compiling, maintaining and making accessible the Register of Members’ Interests.
The Committee spent a considerable time examining the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee wished to strike a balance between the independence of the commissioner and the authority of the Committee and, ultimately, the Assembly.
Key witnesses all stressed the importance of the commissioner’s being, and being seen to be, independent from the Committee and the Assembly when investigating complaints. That independence was seen to be crucial to enable the commissioner to investigate complaints in an unbiased and fair manner. That is also important to promote public confidence in the investigative process.
In taking evidence, the Committee also noted that several individuals who investigate complaints in other Parliaments and Assemblies had resigned directorships and memberships of political parties, or other affiliations, if that was considered to prejudice their perceived impartiality. The Committee intends to discuss that matter in detail with the Assembly Commission, if the Assembly agrees that a commissioner for standards should be appointed.
The Committee agreed that the commissioner would report his or her findings on all complaints to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The commissioner’s report would also be submitted to the Assembly under cover of a report from the Committee.
As part of its inquiry, the Committee also considered the extent of the powers of the Committee and the sanctions or penalties that it can recommend to the Assembly. The Committee was concerned that, although it had some power to investigate Members, there was a lack of clarity on what, if any, sanctions or penalties the Committee could recommend that the Assembly impose on a Member if a complaint were upheld by the Committee.
The Committee was clear that in serious cases it is essential that it should be able to recommend the imposition of some kind of sanction or penalty. If that is not the case, the process of investigating and reporting on complaints will be of limited value and the concept and practice of the Assembly’s regulating its affairs will seem to be ineffective.
The issue of penalties and sanctions against Members is referred to in section 43(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and there is provision in the Act for those powers to be included in the Assembly’s Standing Orders. Unfortunately that has not yet been done. The Committee is therefore strongly of the view that Standing Orders and, indeed, the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members should be amended to empower the Committee to recommend the imposition of a limited range of sanctions or penalties in cases where a serious complaint is upheld against a Member.
If Standing Orders were amended to incorporate the provisions of the Act, the Committee would be in a position, when required, to recommend to the Assembly that a Member be excluded from proceedings and/or that his or her rights and privileges be withdrawn for that period of exclusion. A recommendation of that nature from the Committee would be made if a Member failed to register an interest, financial or otherwise, failed to declare an interest before taking part in proceedings relating to such an interest or breached the rules of advocacy.
In proposing these changes to the Assembly’s Standing Orders, the Committee acknowledges the need to discuss the issues raised with the Committee on Procedures. I encourage members of that Committee to support our desire to put in place arrangements that will ensure implementation of my Committee’s recommendations.
The Committee believes that the recommendations in this report will go a long way towards demonstrating to our electorate the commitment of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Assembly itself to the highest level of probity on the part of Members in conducting their business inside and outside the Assembly. I sincerely hope that the report will receive widespread support in the Assembly.
Finally, I thank the Clerk to the Committee, who is ill at this time, the replacement Clerk and the staff for their hard work and valuable support in helping the Committee to present the report. I invite Members to support the motion.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Committee agreed unanimously that there is a need to appoint an Assembly commissioner for standards. The Committee also made recommendations on the role of the commissioner and the way that role would interact with the Committee to maintain standards and public confidence in the Assembly.
I express my appreciation to the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, and I would like to particularly thank the Clerk of the Committee, Mr John Torney, and his staff for their work throughout the evidence-gathering period. I valued their guidance and assistance, and I hope that John will make a full and speedy recovery.
At the outset, the Committee on Standards and Privileges received a stream of mostly minor unsubstantiated complaints against Members. Most of those were dealt with speedily. It became apparent that there would be practical difficulties if the Committee had to gather evidence for a more serious case. There is a need for clarification and certainty about how detailed investigations should be carried out and what sanctions the Committee could recommend.
It is essential that we progress and improve our system of regulation. I will be concentrating on the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
It is important to strike a balance between the independence of the commissioner, when investigating and reporting to the Committee, and the authority of the Committee, and indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly, in making the final judgement and determining the appropriate penalty.
Those who investigate complaints must be unbiased and fair and must also be perceived to be so. The Committee believes that it would not be possible for a Member to carry out the role of commissioner because of the political or other relevant affiliations that might bring their impartiality into question.
We propose that, in order to maintain public confidence in the process, all complaints be passed to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in writing. The Clerk would log the complaints, pass them to the commissioner for consideration and then advise the Committee, which would have no role in sifting complaints.
In a case where the commissioner determines, on the basis of a preliminary investigation, that the complaint is of a trivial nature, he will advise the Committee that no further action is required. That will minimise the possible abuse of the system by political opponents and maintain maximum public confidence.
Members agreed that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should not question decisions by the commissioner in trivial cases.
When the commissioner determines that a detailed investigation is required, we would request that the Clerk and the Committee be advised of the likely timescale and the progress that is being made. Several witnesses recommended that, in order to protect the Member under scrutiny, the Committee, and the commissioner, would submit no intermediate reports because such information could lead to ill-informed press speculation about the final outcome.
The commissioner will submit the completed report to the Committee and, having given the commissioner independence in making the report, we recommend that the authority to make a judgement remains with the Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As in other places, the Committee should be empowered to request additional information from the commissioner and to question additional witnesses should it decide that that is necessary. The Committee will then assume responsibility for publishing the commissioner’s report, as well as its covering report.
Lessons may be learned in the future and the Committee has, therefore, included in its report the need to review practices. I recommend the Committee’s report as the best practice that we are aware of, considering our limited experience to date. I urge Members to support the motion, and the relevant Committees and the Assembly Commission to progress this matter as quickly as possible.

Mr Jim Wells: This is the Committee’s first report and if it is implemented it will serve to underscore the need for Assembly Members to ensure the highest level of probity in conducting their affairs inside and outside the Chamber. There have been remarkably few complaints made to the Committee since it was set up.
I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament over the past couple of months. The people there were amazed when they heard how few complaints had been levelled against Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In the Scottish Parliament complaints are running at about one a week, and in the Welsh Assembly the relevant Committee is kept very busy dealing with complaints. However, there have only been five or six minor complaints in the entire lifespan of the Northern Ireland Assembly and none have occurred in the past 18 months. When preparing for this speech I tried to think why this was. I can only think that it is because of the calming influence of the DUP in the Assembly — it ensures that everyone is extremely well behaved. There is absolutely no doubt that had the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly had the benefit of the sanctifying influence of Dr Paisley and William McCrea, they too would be very well behaved.
The report has the unanimous support of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We are grateful to all the witnesses — including those from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly — for their evidence. I thank the Committee staff for their assistance in the inquiry. We should place on record our debt of gratitude to John Torney, who, unfortunately, has been ill recently. I understand that he is recovering well. The document is a testimony to his efforts. My Colleague Mr Beggs explained the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee. My comments will concentrate briefly on the proposed arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee to the Assembly following investigations by the commissioner for standards.
Following the commissioner’s investigation into a complaint, the findings and recommendations will be presented to the Committee through the Clerk of Standards. The Committee will report that either the outcome of the case is trivial in nature and requires only preliminary investigation — indeed, that has been the situation with all the complaints that have been made to date — or that the results are such that the complaint requires a detailed investigation. In the case of trivial complaints the Committee will report the commissioner’s findings to the Assembly. That will be accompanied by a statement confirming that the Committee accepts the commissioner’s recommendation and that no further action is required.
In the case of complaints that require detailed investigation, the commissioner’s report will be submitted to the Assembly under cover of a report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee’s covering report will detail its consideration of the commissioner’s findings and conclusions, its decision on whether the Committee has upheld the complaint and a recommendation to the Assembly on the appropriate sanction or penalty.
It is essential that the highest standards of probity be maintained in the Assembly. They must also be seen to be maintained. Therefore an independent commissioner is vital. There are those who have argued that, because of the level of complaints, perhaps we do not need a commissioner. The presence of a commissioner should ensure that there will be few complaints. That person must be someone of the highest possible standing — someone who is totally independent and impartial. The appointment will underscore people’s confidence in the Assembly. I believe that we will continue to have a situation where there will be little cause for complaint.
I urge Members to support the motion in the name of Mr McClelland. It has the unanimous support of members of the Committee. It has been a smoothly run and amicable Committee, and we agreed on almost every point of the report. I highly recommend it to the House, and I hope that it will have the unanimous support of everyone here today.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an rún agus mo thacaíocht a thabhairt don tuairisc ó Choiste Caighdeán agus Pribhléidí an Tionóil. I too endorse the report and support the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Members have outlined the broad role of the Committee. It deals with matters of privilege for Assembly Members, the work of the Clerk of Standards and the arrangements for compiling and maintaining the Register of Members’ Interests. The Committee’s role also involves the consideration of complaints relating to the registration and declaration of Members’ interests, the conduct or misconduct of Members, and breaches of the code of conduct for Members.
When the Committee on Standards and Privileges considered the small number of complaints referred to it, it became clear that there was no clear outline, guideline or procedure on how the Committee should proceed to investigate a complaint. The investigative powers of the Committee were not clearly defined.
I will focus on the range of sanctions which may be applied to a Member if a complaint is made against him. Neither the Standing Orders of the Assembly nor the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members empowers the Committee to recommend a sanction if a complaint is made against a Member. Standing Orders enable the Committee to investigate complaints which have been referred to it and to summon Members to respond to the complaint.
Section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for Standing Orders to include sanctions against Members, but our Standing Orders do not, at present, make provision for such action. The Act allows for Standing Orders to make provision for the exclusion of Members from proceedings and the withdrawal of their rights and privileges during exclusion.
In considering this issue together with the role of the Assembly commissioner, how he would work with the Committee and how the Committee would report to the Assembly, we heard very useful evidence from other sources. These included representatives from the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. Their evidence was particularly useful because, fairly recently, these institutions have also had to deal with the issue of standards and privileges and the investigation of complaints.
We also had witnesses from Dáil Éireann, the Select Committee on Members’ Interests and the House of Commons. We heard particularly useful evidence from ElizabethFilkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons.
Having considered the range of evidence, the Committee concluded that, in its report to the Assembly, it should recommend that the Standing Orders be amended — in particular, Standing Order57 — to enable the Committee, when a complaint has been investigated by the commissioner and the commissioner has reported, to recommend to the Assembly that sanctions be imposed. The Committee also recommended that these sanctions should be particularly applicable in cases where there has been an allegation that a Member has failed to register certain interests, or to declare such interests while taking part in proceedings, and where a Members is alleged to have breached the rule of advocacy or the Code of Conduct for Members. It would also be necessary to amend the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members to accommodate the Committee’s recommendations to the Assembly in cases where sanctions may be imposed. Therefore, I recommend that the Assembly support the motion and accept the report.
I thank, in particular, the Committee staff and those who provided us with very useful evidence. Most witnesses came to visit us in Parliament Buildings, thus making it much more convenient. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I am pleased to support the motion. As has been said, the aim is to ensure the highest levels of integrity in the conduct of affairs both inside and outside the Assembly. It is unfortunately the case that in recent years there have been several instances of behaviour by members of other bodies, namely the House of Commons and Dáil Éireann, which have come to the attention of the general public for all the wrong reasons. This Assembly is a new authority, and now is the time to say that wrongdoing is totally unacceptable.
The highest standards are expected of public representatives, and rightly so. We must put in place a system whereby wrongdoing by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be tolerated, and neither will unwarranted allegations of wrongdoing. It is regrettable that we have to consider a system of sanctions and penalties, while at the same time hoping that they will never have to be implemented.
I accept that in the event of our agreeing to the appointment of a commissioner, it is necessary to give some teeth to a revised Code of Conduct. Putting all these arrangements in place will need much further work, not least by way of consultation with other interested parties. It is important that the Assembly Commission and other Assembly Committees, such as the Committee on Procedures, are actively involved in this consultation process. I urge those interested parties to work with our Committee to secure the full implementation of our recommendation.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Committee for their very dedicated work in helping members to draw up this report. I thank our Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the members of the Committee for working harmoniously together. I also thank the range of witnesses who contributed to our work. In conclusion, I thank the Clerk of the Committee, Mr John Torney, who has been taken unwell recently. I join with others to wish John a speedy recovery. I recommend that Members support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am very pleased with the response to the report, and I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The Committee decided that in presenting the report to the Assembly, it would attempt to cover the key sections of the report among members in some depth, and so demonstrate the cross-party support for the recommendations. In particular, I thank my Committee Colleagues for their contribution and support during the debate.
My Deputy Chairman, Mr Roy Beggs, gave us a very helpful explanation of how a commissioner for standards would work alongside the Committee on Standards and Privileges. He quite rightly stressed the crucial need for the commissioner to be able to investigate complaints in an unbiased and fair way, and so to ensure public confidence in the Committee’s investigative process.
Mr Wells commented on the small number of complaints. I hope that he is not signalling in any way that that will change in the near future. He spoke on, among other things, the arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee following an investigation by the commissioner. In doing so, he helpfully re-emphasised the role of the Assembly in the self-regulation of Members.
I want to say a brief word about the opportunity or facility to appeal against a decision reached by the Assembly. The Committee considered this issue at the time of the inquiry and agreed that, at present, the best system for the Assembly is to be self-regulatory and operate self-discipline, as the Members are best able to weigh up and evaluate the gravity of the offence. The Committee believes that it is the responsibility of Members to maintain the good name and integrity of the Assembly.
Mr McNamee covered on behalf of the Committee, and quite rightly stressed, the important issue of the powers or sanctions that can be recommended by the Committee to the Assembly in the event of a complaint against a Member being upheld. It is important to the operational effectiveness of the commissioner and the Committee that provision is made for appropriate sanctions and penalties to be made by the Assembly. This point was again taken up by Mr McCarthy, who helpfully highlighted the impact of the Committee’s findings on Standing Orders and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. This shows the importance of the Committee on Standards and Privileges needing to work with other Assembly Committees. I repeat the words of my Colleagues and urge the Committee on Procedures to assist us in the implementation of our recommendations.
Finally, I want again to thank everyone who contributed to the debate and commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the findings and conclusions contained in the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges —‘Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards’ (01/00/R) — and calls for all appropriate arrangements to be put in place by the Assembly Commission, the Speaker’s Office and other relevant Assembly Committees to ensure implementation of the recommendations.
The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Question, 11 standing in the name of Mr Hilditch, has been withdrawn.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Foot-and-Mouth Disease

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether they have asked the North/South Ministerial Council to consider the introduction of legislation to control the importation of animals from Great Britain during the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1255/00)


No. The North/South Ministerial Council has no locus in relation to legislation. However, one of the first protective measures introduced by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when the disease was confirmed in Great Britain was to ban the import into Northern Ireland of all live susceptible animals from Great Britain.
That was implemented on 21 February 2001 and banned the import of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. It was extended on 28 February to include horses. The ban on all these animals will stay in place while the disease risk from such imports remains high.
In addition to this internal United Kingdom ban, the European Union imposed a ban on the export of all live susceptible animals and their products to the whole of the United Kingdom. None of these animals or products can, therefore, legally enter the Republic of Ireland directly.
A meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council’s agriculture sector is planned for 6 April to consider the issues of mutual concern arising from the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak in order to supplement the obvious ongoing co-operation. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is satisfied that it has adequate and sufficient powers to control the importation of animals from Great Britain during the outbreak of the disease.


At the outset of the foot-and-mouth-disease crisis, while the Agriculture Minister was able to do something, she told us that she was powerless to stop the movement of livestock at that point, or even earlier when we first knew of the outbreak in Britain. Considering this is an all-Ireland situation, I feel that the North/South Ministerial Council should have a role in both examining this trend to address it for the future and stopping the movement of livestock from Britain to this island.


The simple reason for that is that a ban was imposed as soon as the disease was detected. However, let us also be realistic about this. We are dealing with the British Isles and a common travel area. Within that area — absent of a health risk — there is no limitation on travel. Let us also remember that this problem arose in Armagh and in Louth solely because of the illegal animal trade and smuggling that characterises that area.


Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that there is an urgent need to raise animal health standards in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that its standards of animal health and welfare are at least equal to those of the industry in Northern Ireland? Will they further agree that much greater efforts must now be placed on the control and eradication of the smuggling of livestock between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and vice versa?


I agree entirely. One thing we may find coming out of this unhappy episode is that there will now be a much greater realisation, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, of the need to deal with the illegal trade and to raise the measures as regards controls and safeguards to the same standards as those that exist here.


The North/South Ministerial Council has no legislative powers in either jurisdiction. Can the First Minister tell the House if there have been discussions about the prevention of the illegal movement of animals around the country? What measures, both North and South, will be taken to prevent it?


Over the course of the previous couple of weeks the Member will have seen that there has been close, practical co-operation between the Departments of Agriculture here and in the Republic of Ireland. The issue will come up for discussion at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on 6 April. One encouraging matter has been the response in the Republic of Ireland to this, particularly the suggestions I have seen from the Irish Government on how to tighten up on the illegal trade and increase the level of safeguards there. That is promising. It would be convenient if we could co-ordinate the measures that are taken in regard to the illegal trade through a mechanism such as that.

Discussions with United States Administration

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what follow-up plans are to be set in place following the recent discussions with the new Administration of the United States of America.
(AQO1252/00)


During our recent visit we had an opportunity to meet with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Members of Congress. We provided a briefing on progress made on the Programme for Government and the outstanding political issues still to be resolved. Follow-up action will be undertaken at official level via the Northern Ireland Bureau with a view to ensuring that co-operative linkages between Northern Ireland Departments and their USA counterparts are developed in ways that promote a practical understanding of our overall objectives.


Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it is important that these discussions move on from political matters to those of inward investment and how to assist Northern Ireland’s economy? Is it the intention of the First and Deputy First Ministers, perhaps through the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington, to make further detailed arrangements for liaison on the subject of inward investment, which was the norm in previous presidencies?


The Member will be aware that the First Minister and I engaged in what we regarded as an onerous but successful roadshow in the United States some time ago. As part of the briefing that we gave on the implementation of the Programme for Government to the United States Administration we emphasised the continuing importance of American investment as a critical factor in securing progress towards a peaceful, inclusive and prosperous society. The importance of establishing strong working linkages with the United States Department of Commerce was registered. It was fully accepted by those senior members of the Administration to whom we spoke.
During informal — and I stress the word "informal" — discussions in the United States I was made aware of possible plans for an American investment conference in the autumn organised by non-governmental groups. I will probably have more information about that later this week. I will keep the Member and the House informed.


Will the Deputy First Minister confirm to the House the total cost of this visit to the United States of America to the taxpayer? Will he list the officials who accompanied the First Minister and himself and confirm that on this occasion the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister did not fall out over policing? Is that a sign that the First Minister has now caved in to the Deputy First Minister’s position on policing?


I thank the Member for the rather predictable question. The cost of the official visit has not yet been tabulated or formulated, but no doubt, the hon Member will put down a written question when it is. The information will then be provided.
With regard to the second part of the Member’s question, three officials accompanied the First Minister, three officials accompanied the Deputy First Minister and we were both accompanied by a senior official from our Department.
The matter of policing was discussed; it was discussed during a detailed meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. As the Member rightly surmised, there was no falling-out over this issue. In relation to the part of the question that he did not ask, I was delighted to see his party leader and his Colleague Peter Robinson present in the same room as us all with the President of the United States and, I assume, pursuing the same objectives.


Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that, during discussion with the new American Administration, they stressed the need to proscribe the dissident Republican terrorist organisations and to take effective action to inhibit terrorist fundraising in the United States of America?


I can confirm that the First Minister raised this issue in the meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. There was a very positive response, and I can further confirm that there was no fallout over that issue.

Senior Citizens

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to ensure that senior citizens are afforded equality under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and to give an assurance that the appalling attacks on them will be addressed as a major issue for the Assembly.
(AQO1240/00)


Attacks on vulnerable senior citizens are cowardly. They must be deplored by all. The Executive and Assembly will wish to give every possible support to the RUC and the courts in making those responsible for such attacks answerable to the law for their crimes. Arising from the Belfast Agreement, a statutory equality duty was introduced under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Under this new equality duty one of the categories to be considered is persons of different age, which, of course, includes senior citizens.


I welcome the assurances given by the First Minister, which will come as a source of comfort to all those senior citizens who have been attacked throughout Northern Ireland. Can the First Minister go further and assure the House that there is an inter-agency approach to protecting the rights of senior citizens? Finally, can he assure the House that greater recognition will be given to the role of the voluntary bodies, such as St Vincent de Paul, Help the Aged and the Salvation Army, which play a vital role in ensuring that senior citizens really have equality?


I thank the Member for his question, and I note that there have been some very unpleasant incidents in his constituency which are, no doubt, very much upon his mind. On the question of an inter-agency approach among voluntary agencies, we recognise the essential work carried out by the voluntary and community sector in several areas, particularly in work with, and for, the elderly. The Executive financially support a number of organisations which assist the elderly, including Help the Aged and St Vincent de Paul.


Does the First Minister agree that the disgraceful assaults on senior citizens are symptomatic of disregard for elderly people in general? Will he assure me that he will start to redress the problem by giving a commitment to provision for elderly people in the single equality Bill?


The single equality Bill will draw together measures with regard to anti-discrimination and the equality duty under section 75. I am not sure that anything that we would do under that heading will deal directly with the issue of assaults on the elderly. That is essentially a police issue. Of course, if there are ways in which we can deal with that latter point, we will.


I note the First Minister’s comments. Does he agree that our senior citizens have made an excellent contribution to society? How will his office address equality in relation to ageism and the fact that at 60 or 65 years of age senior citizens still have a very valuable contribution to make to society?


We will be going out to consultation on the single equality Bill quite soon. The Member will see that there are a number of issues raised in that which we can deal with. The substantive point he makes is one with which I would agree. Although people may retire at the age of 60 or 65, many of them are still capable of making a very significant contribution to society, and we want to encourage that.

Agriculture Industry: Support from Executive EU Office

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the level of service and support that the Northern Ireland agriculture industry can expect from the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels.
(AQO1195/00)


The Brussels office will provide support for the Executive as a whole, but providing support and other services to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development as she helps the Northern Ireland agriculture industry through a difficult time will be a high priority in the coming months. The head of the office has now taken up post in Brussels.


Does the Deputy First Minister accept that, because of the special significance of the common agricultural policy for farming and rural development, it is essential that we have agricultural expertise in the Northern Ireland office in Brussels?


Staff in the Brussels office will work for all Departments in accordance with priorities that will be agreed by the Departments. The special significance of EU agricultural policy means that agriculture will have a high priority in the Brussels office. It is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to set out policy in that area and to determine the nature of its negotiations.
The staff of the Brussels office, working closely with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will develop contacts with agriculture experts in UKRep and in the Commission and pursue relevant lines of enquiry. Should the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development decide that it needs a dedicated agriculture expert in the Brussels office, we would discuss how that need would be met.


Can the Deputy First Minister say how much it has cost to set up the Brussels office? How has the project exceeded its budget by so much?


The project has overrun because of internal regulations there and the need to refurbish the office. I understand that the office will be finally and fully open by the end of April. The notional cost was £450,000, which will, of course, be increased by the cost of fitting out the office in such a way that it can offer a proper service to the Executive and to Members of the Assembly who might require assistance while in Brussels, and promote Northern Ireland interests in the European Union.


The Deputy First Minister referred to liaison between the Northern Ireland Executive office in Brussels and agriculture experts in UKRep. How will the Northern Ireland view be put directly to the Commission, without being mediated through UKRep, when Great Britain’s interests are not the same as ours?


Our message will be conveyed directly by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain. We need to know about what is coming on-stream and about how we might bring benefits to Northern Ireland agriculture. That will be the benefit of having both the office and the expertise of UKRep.

Single Equality Bill

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on plans for consultation on a single equality Bill.
(AQO1251/00)


The Programme for Government contains a commitment to initiate consultation on a single equality Bill. The preliminary consultation will be on the scope and content of the Bill and will be open and wide-ranging. Our office is planning to hold seminars to discuss what should be included in the Bill, in addition to inviting written comment. Consideration will be given to holding additional meetings for interested groups.


Will there be consultation on the draft Bill itself?


Yes. Our timetable for the Bill includes two consultations. The first consultation on the scope and content of the Bill will begin soon and will be open and wide-ranging. A second consultation, focusing on the draft Bill itself, will be held in 2002. After we settle the scope and range of matters, a draft Bill will be published and people will be able to consult on the detail, as well as on the general issues. An equality impact assessment will be carried out on the draft Bill and will be incorporated, along with a regulatory impact assessment, in that consultation.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We were led to expect the consultation to begin in early spring. Can the Minister be more specific in identifying a date when the consultation will take place, and also give the reasons for the delay in beginning consultations?


There are several complex issues to be considered in this matter. It is our intention to go out to consultation as soon as possible. We had hoped that that would begin in April, but the Member will notice that I have been careful not to give a commitment on that matter. There are other factors floating around — I think "floating around" is the appropriate term — that may cause problems.


Will the First Minister confirm that in deciding upon the scope of this equality Bill in Northern Ireland, consideration will be given to the wider UK context of equality provision, especially in the light of recent relevant court cases?


Some of the matters that we will have to consider actually come from outside the UK, such as the Equal Treatment Directive and the Race Directive. In dealing with those, as with any other fundamental matter of human rights, one has to ensure that there is no geographical discrimination within the state, and the state is the United Kingdom. The point was graphically raised several years ago in a case brought by a person who was employed in this Building, a MrDudgeon, in which the European Courts held that there has to be equality of treatment within the state.

Unemployment Differentials (TSN Action Plans)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what account is taken of unemployment differentials in the development and implementation of New TSN action plans.
(AQO1247/00)


The Programme for Government explicitly recognises the importance of tackling community differentials in unemployment. That is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which commits us to the goal of progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities. New TSN is the key Executive policy for addressing social deprivation. It aims to tackle social need and social exclusion by targeting efforts and available resources within existing departmental programmes towards people, groups and areas in greatest social need.
New TSN aims to contribute to the reduction of inequalities among different sections of society by consistently addressing the problems and people who are objectively shown to be in greatest social need. New TSN should, over time, contribute to the erosion of those inequalities. However, it may be necessary to agree objective measures of inequality as a matter of urgency, before any measurement is used in fulfilment of the Good Friday Agreement. For example, we will develop a new up-to-date assessment of the geographical distribution of deprivation.
In addition, as our New TSN publication, ‘Making It Work’, makes clear, the Equality Commission has been empowered to advise on the community differential in unemployment. It has also been empowered to advise Government on setting benchmark measures for the future reduction of the unemployment differential, involving bringing together representatives of employers, employees, the political parties and other interests. The devolved Administration is committed to working co-operatively with the Equality Commission in all of those tasks.


How will progress on New TSN be monitored?


Departments are implementing the actions and objections in their action plans as published in ‘Making It Work’, and the Executive Committee will be keeping a very close watch on progress on the New TSN action plans across all Departments. Ministers will provide up-to-date progress reports. Every Department will thoroughly review its action plan each year and update it to take account of progress, building in new targets to follow those that have been completed.
Each year the Executive will publish a New TSN annual report so that people will be able to see for themselves what has been achieved during each year. There will be an evaluation of New TSN that will report in 2002 and that will include the involvement of external experts. The outcome of the evaluation will feed into future thinking about New TSN.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his detailed and reassuring response. If such differential is addressed, can the Deputy First Minister assure the House that it will take into account and be directed at the areas of traditional high unemployment which have a worse differential than any other area in the Six Counties — the north-west and the Foyle constituency?


New TSN is not only targeted at people, areas or groups in society that transcend urban boundaries and electoral ward boundaries. We must ensure that a pen picture is created for each area. If that were done on an electoral ward basis, that pen picture would be especially useful for all of us.
In areas that do not suffer from social deprivation there are pockets and parts that are in need, and they must be dealt with. The Executive await the report that has been commissioned from Mike Noble. It is hoped that when those benchmarks are applied we will get proper pen pictures for the whole of the North of Ireland and all the areas that require TSN will be identified — including those pockets in areas that do not have this problem.
I understand what the Member is saying about Derry — and it also applies to Belfast — and about the areas where urban regeneration is taking place. This is useful not as a means to end the problem but as a start to getting to grips with it.


I have listened very carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s replies. Can he confirm to the House that much work remains to be done to ascertain a truly accurate understanding of the labour market in Northern Ireland? Further to that, will he tell the House the true reason for the limited unemployment differentials that still exist?


A great amount of work has still to be done, and the Executive have to devise the best ways in which to tackle that problem. We all recognise that there is no one path to it, but that there are various aspects of the problem given the people, areas and groups in society to which it applies. Most important of all — as with any problem — we must recognise that there is a problem and that it has to be dealt with. This is not to be a matter of debate for the Assembly or elsewhere, but it is a problem that has to be dealt with if we are ever going to build the type of stable society that we wish for.

Commissioner for Children

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether consultation was undertaken with the Government and other devolved Administrations when formulating policy on the appointment of a commissioner for children.
(AQO1200/00)


A comprehensive consultation process on the issues of a children’s commissioner and a strategy for children is currently under way. As part of that process officials are liaising with the Government at Westminster and the other devolved Administrations to gather information on best practice in those jurisdictions and elsewhere.


Is the First Minister aware that Scotland and Wales have also moved to appoint a children’s commissioner. Given the opportunity that presents itself for the exchange of knowledge and information, will he assure the House that close working relationships will be established with children’s commissioners in other parts of the United Kingdom?


As part of the consultation process on the proposal for a children’s commissioner for NorthernIreland, we are already in discussion with the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales about arrangements there. The commissioner will be independent of Government, so it will be a matter for him or her to develop working relationships with commissioners in other jurisdictions. I would be amazed if they did not wish to do that as a matter of priority.


Does the First Minister share the belief that there should be a requirement for the commissioner to be proactive and have the capacity to direct the security services to deal with circumstances where there is a belief that children are not being properly dealt with?


I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will respond to that question. The time is up.

Regional Development

Question 13, standing in the name of Mr Hilditch, has been withdrawn.

Belfast-Bangor Railway

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline when the Bangor rail line will be relaid.
(AQO1229/00)


Translink has advised me that the site works for the relaying of the Belfast-Bangor railway line are due to commence on 6August2001, with full completion of the project due by 22December2001. The work will entail the relaying of some 23miles of track, representing investment of the order of almost £15million. It is another step towards the achievement of the consolidation option for the rail network outlined in the railways task force interim report and for which the Assembly agreed funding in December2000.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)


I thank the Minister for his most welcome answer. He will know that the Bangor line is the flagship of new rail commuter arrangements for the Belfast metropolitan area with new rails, new trains, a new station and new park-and-ride facilities. Why is there such a row between the Bangor Chamber of Commerce and Translink over the use of the Abbey Street car park as a park-and-ride facility — a row that may blight the opening of the new station on Thursday?


I understand that there are some difficulties, but I am unaware of the precise detail of any problems that have arisen with Bangor Chamber of Commerce. However, I am told that the work will start as scheduled. I will undertake, as a result of what MrMcFarland has said, to investigate whether any delay will arise as a result of the problems he has just outlined.


Does the Department for Regional Development intend to do something about a light rail system in and around Belfast to relieve congestion and the various defects in the public transport system? In the absence of a light rail system, is there a possibility of upgrading the existing system, or doing whatever it takes to provide a more adequate public transport system in the city?


The issue of light rail and other shifts of modal transportation are being discussed as part of the regional transportation strategy, which, as the Member will know, we hope to introduce to the Assembly in the next three or four months.
Issues such as the light rail system, or any advanced transportation system that presently does not exist in the Belfast metropolitan area, will be considered as part of the strategy. However, I am sure that the Member would not expect me to pre-empt the outcome of the transportation strategy.
I had a very useful meeting last Friday — the first with many of those involved — about the development of the strategy. The issues raised by the Member will form one of many strands that will be examined as a result of the developing transportation strategy throughout Northern Ireland.


Following Mr McFarland’s question regarding the Bangor line, I welcome the Minister’s statement on the commencement of the work. Can he assure me that, as well as talking to the Chamber of Commerce, passengers and residents of the area will be advised about the commencement and what is happening throughout the relaying of the line?


I give that undertaking. Translink anticipates that the work can be concentrated into a short period of time through the use of a special relay train. The work will be carried out during a 20-week period. During that period, single-line operation will be required from Monday to Friday and the line will be closed each Saturday and Sunday. Translink will be issuing a revised timetable during the period of single-line operation. I will undertake to ensure that local residents are consulted in advance of any of these changes.

Unadopted Roads and Services (Prospect Area, Carrickfergus)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to advise if the Roads Service will be appointing consultants and subcontractors to upgrade the unadopted roads and services in the Prospect area of Carrickfergus and to detail when the improvements will take place.
(AQO1234/00)


As I mentioned in answer to the Member’s question on 5 March, my Department’s Roads Service issued a formal notice giving the developer of the Prospect area of Carrickfergus 28 days to commence the work necessary to bring the roads up to adoption standard. That period expired on 15 March and as the developer did not respond, the Roads Service moved quickly to appoint a contractor to undertake the necessary remedial work. Our contractor has been on site for about one week and the work should be completed by the end of April. The cost will be recovered from the developer’s bond.


I welcome the Minister’s answer. I was not aware of that when I placed the question two weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that the Roads Service, which is under his departmental control, has been slow in the past to bring developers to account to ensure that roads and services are brought up to the required standard? Can he assure me that the Roads Service will press the needs of residents rather than be perceived to be reluctant to draw down developer’s bonds and thus upgrade the roads and services that local residents require?


I understand the frustrations, particularly when there is an inordinately long period of time for the developer to respond. The statutory position is that the responsibility for constructing roads and sewers in new developments lies with developers. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 gives my Department the right to take action when developers fail to fulfil this obligation. Roads Service practice is to make every effort possible to persuade developers to meet their responsibilities voluntarily. However, as a last resort my Department is certainly prepared to use its statutory powers, as has been demonstrated in the case of the Prospect development.


Is the Minister still confident that the various programmes to upgrade the Maiden City to Aughnacloy section of the trans-European route are on schedule? Is funding guaranteed so that the Strabane bypass, and others, can be assured over the next three years?


I thank my hon Friend for his question and for the way in which he was able to weave that matter into the question.
I wish I were in a position to guarantee funding for these schemes. However, I understand that the Minster of Finance and Personnel may throw light on some of these schemes very shortly. I assure the Member that I am doing everything in my power to ensure that the finance required by my Department to carry out priority road schemes in the major works preparation pool is received so that we can build all of the roads, including those he has referred to.


I am almost tempted to ask about the A8 to Larne, but I will not do so.
Can the Minister assure the House that all will be done to ensure that road and housing developments will be adopted as quickly as possible? This is a problem not just in Carrickfergus but in several new developments throughout Northern Ireland.


I assure the Member that despite the delays that unfortunately have become a feature in some areas of Northern Ireland, my Department’s Roads Service is doing all it can to ensure that developers fulfil their obligations. Where developers do not do so, the Department will take action against them similar to that outlined previously with regard to Carrickfergus. If other developers default, we will take the same necessary action.

Road Improvements (Comber Area): Vesting of Land

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to list the areas where land has been vested for road improvements in the Comber area in the past two years.
(AQO1224/00)


My Department’s Roads Service has vested no land for road improvements in the Comber area in the past two years. However, it is in the process of vesting land for stage 2 of the Comber bypass scheme as well as realigning 500m of the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam.


Can the Minister assure me that the Comber bypass will go ahead regardless of the outcome of the planning application, which included the Comber bypass?


The Comber bypass, as in so many of these instances, is one of a number of schemes where I require the necessary resources to ensure that not only do they begin but that they are completed.
The hon Member referred to a recent planning application — the result of which was announced last Friday — which referred to a residential neighbourhood development and included the bypass and a new junction to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposal. Planning Services’ notice of opinion to refuse that housing development covered only that particular version of the bypass. However, my Department already holds a valid planning approval for the original version, so the Comber bypass scheme is not affected by the recent planning announcement.


The decision taken by the Department of the Environment to reject the planning application in respect of the Riverside development in Comber was regrettable and deplorable. The project would have built a bypass without cost to the public purse. Will the Minister ensure that, irrespective of that deplorable decision, the Comber bypass will proceed in accordance with the previous schedule? Will he fight to secure the funds that are now necessary, owing to the rejection of the planning application?


It is good to see the Member back in the House again. I shall take all necessary steps to ensure that I have the resources to construct each of the schemes in the major works preparation pool. I pay no less attention to the Comber bypass than I do to other road schemes. I know that if I were to mention all of those schemes, Members would add more to the list.
I shall make whatever bids and representations are necessary to ensure that the Comber bypass proceeds.


The Minister mentioned the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam. In view of the fact that money was taken from a project to provide a much needed footpath in Kircubbin some years ago and that the Flowdam project shows no signs of coming to fruition, will the money be returned to the budget and used to provide a much needed footpath in Kircubbin?


I cannot comment immediately on the issue of funding for a footpath that was, as the Member said, withdrawn some years ago. However, I undertake to investigate that matter.
The procedures for vesting the land required for the minor works scheme to realign 500m of the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam have begun. An area of 1·68 hectares will be vested.

Housing (Brownfield Sites)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development, in relation to the draft regional strategic framework for Northern Ireland, ‘Shaping Our Future’, to outline the basis on which recommendations were made to build a percentage of new homes on brownfield sites.
(AQO1254/00)


The draft regional strategic framework, which was the subject of a public examination in 1999, set targets for the share of residential development to be located in existing urban areas to reduce greenfield extensions. The targets up to 2010 were 55% for the Belfast metropolitan area and 40% for Londonderry and each regional town. The targets were set in comparison with a 60% target for England by 2008 and in the knowledge that 55% brownfield development was being achieved in some cities in England. The local targets also recognised the fact that Northern Ireland is less urbanised than many other regions of the United Kingdom.
The panel that reported on the public examination recommended a minimum brownfield target of 40% for Northern Ireland but said that more challenging targets should be set for individual settlements using the area plan process, which would, in turn, be informed by urban capacity studies. In recent discussions on the final draft of the regional development strategy, the Regional Development Committee expressed serious concern that the minimum regional target for brownfield housing development is too low. I am convinced that there is a compelling case for setting a more challenging and ambitious target, which will support the continuing efforts to regenerate our towns and cities. I reassure the House that, in setting the most appropriate target for brownfield development in the regional development strategy, I will take seriously the concerns expressed by the Regional Development Committee and other Members.


I welcome the Minister’s statement, but does he not agree that the 40% target as it now stands is ridiculously low? Given that no urban capacity has as yet been completed, does he not agree that to have publicly set such a target is wrong and dangerous, insofar as it will lead to more and more pressure on greenfield sites? Does he agree — and perhaps he will look at the figure again — that there will be a substantial increase in the proportion of building to be carried out on brownfield sites and that it will be the equivalent of that set for the rest of the United Kingdom?


Several Members have expressed this view, and I share it. In relation to the establishment of a figure, part of the difficulty is that — whether it be 40%, 50%, 60% or more — it almost inevitably becomes the base line against which developers and the wider community expect all development to be set. I am reluctant to be drawn into a hard-and-fast figure from which there will be no deviation. To repeat what I said about examining the figure, I want to see a more ambitious target being set. I will not be drawn into a precise figure, but I know the Regional Development Committee is in the process of expressing a view. I am acquainted with that view, and I will take it, and the views expressed by my hon Friend and others, into account when that time comes with the regional development strategy.


Does the Minister agree that the setting of such development targets in Northern Ireland is more difficult than it would be in England? In particular, does he agree that the difference between the urban area of Belfast and the rural area is significant and that the requirement for them to be treated separately is greater?
I understand and welcome his comments about the urban development capacity and the limits which should be imposed on it in the Belfast city area, but I am most concerned about the figure being too restrictive. We do not have the brownfield capacity in rural areas in Northern Ireland.


If the tenor of the Member’s question is the distinctiveness between the Belfast metropolitan area and the rest of largely rural Northern Ireland, then I readily concur. We must establish a figure which is ambitious but also realistic. We are in the process of determining that figure. We will decide what is appropriate when the Regional Development Committee has had an opportunity to examine the matter and has passed its views to me. It will have to be appropriate both for rural Northern Ireland and for the urban centre that is the Greater Belfast area.


Does the Minister agree that we are entitled to be disquieted when he now rejects a figure which was offered to strategic planning by his Department? Does he accept the reality that the higher he sets the figure for brownfield build, the more he creates an ethos? Does he also accept that, in turn, it will be in the minds of the developers that they have to adjust to the circumstances of the new ethos which the Minister himself created?


Perhaps the Member did not hear the reference in the response. I will repeat it so that it will be absolutely clear. I am convinced that there is a compelling case for setting a more challenging and ambitious target which will support the continuing efforts to regenerate and breathe new life into our cities and towns. I have not come to a conclusion as to what the figure should be. I am not indicating a predetermined outcome, rather I am indicating what I am looking at. I am awaiting the definitive response of the Regional Development Committee, and I will then come to a conclusion which will be brought before the Assembly within a matter of a few months.

Toome Bypass

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give an update on the proposed Toome bypass project following his recent announcement that the sale of Belfast harbour will not proceed.
(AQO1211/00)


My Department’s Roads Service is continuing to make good progress on the Toome bypass scheme. In particular, both the environmental assessment and planning stages of the scheme have been completed. One objection has been received to the notice of intention to make a vesting order, which was advertised in February 2001. The Roads Service is seeking to resolve this objection with the relevant landowner. A geotechnical contractor has completed approximately 70% of the ground investigations on the site. We have appointed Ove Arup & Partners, who are consultants of international standing, as project managers for the scheme. Contractors have been invited to apply for inclusion in a restricted list of contractors who will be asked to tender for the design and construct contract.
My decision not to proceed with the sale of the port of Belfast will not directly impact on this scheme. With regard to funding, the indicative allocations made available to my Department are not sufficient to fund all of the schemes in the major works preparation pool. I have, however, made very strong bids to the Executive programme funds for the Toome bypass and other schemes. I am hopeful that I shall be successful with these bids.


Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive detail in his reply. However, I was hoping that he would indicate what impact the decision about the Belfast harbour estate has had on the prioritisation of projects. We have already heard reference in earlier questions to other very worthy and relevant projects. We would like reassurance that the Toome bypass project will continue to receive top priority.


The issue of the possible sale of the Port of Belfast has been in the public domain for a number of years. I understand that in the year 1999-2000, public expenditure in Northern Ireland was planned on the basis of a £70 million receipt from the sale of the port. As it did not sell, the impact was borne in that year by reducing expenditure across Northern Ireland programmes generally. Expenditure plans for future years, which have been approved by the Assembly, include most of the funding for the Chancellor’s initiative schemes, including the Toome bypass, and do not depend on any such receipt.


If the Minister is successful in obtaining funding for several schemes in the major works preparation pool, when will he be in a position to make announcements about other schemes in the pool?


I thank the Member for his question, which is almost predicated upon positive news. I hope for positive news.
I cannot predict events, but, if I am successful, I hope to develop schemes that have been debated at Question Time, during Adjournment debates and in correspondence with Members and MPs. Sometimes MPs do not correspond with me to make requests, but raise issues through the media — more of that later. If there is a response, I hope to move very quickly on several schemes.


Has the Minister considered the possibility of a private finance initiative, namely a toll system, for the Toome bypass? Since there is an alternative route for those who do not wish to pay a toll, does he agree that this is an ideal opportunity to test such proposals?


I agree that in the foreseeable future there will be opportunities for the private sector to play a role in major infrastructural investments in Northern Ireland. The Member will be aware that in the past three weeks I paid a visit to the eastern seaboard of the United States where I investigated that very possibility. I hope that it will not be necessary to choose this option for the Toome bypass and that I will be in a position to announce that we are proceeding with this scheme. We could then examine the possibility of private sector finance for other much needed schemes in Northern Ireland.

The Environment

Question 3, standing in the name of Mr Arthur Doherty, has been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and a written response will be given. Question 8, in the name of Mr Close, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and he will receive a written answer. Question 18, in the name of Mr Byrne, will also be responded to in writing; it has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Irish Hare

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his proposals to provide greater protection for the Irish hare.
(AQO1210/00)


In October 2000 I launched a species action plan for the Irish hare. The action plan will be implemented by a partnership, which will include the Ulster Wildlife Trust, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service. The plan deals with the decline, over the past three decades, in the number of hares in Northern Ireland. The action points in the plan includes the completion of a repeat survey of hares. The Environment and Heritage Service will commission this work once the current restrictions caused by the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak have been lifted. When I have assessed the repeat survey and the impact of the other three measures in the species action plan, I will consider what further steps, if any, need to be taken.


Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland that the catching of hares, an endangered species, still takes place? Hares are taken to contained sites, chased by greyhounds that happen to have muzzles on them, and are not necessarily returned to the places from where they were caught in the first instance. Given that the Department is granting licences for this practice, the hare population is continuing to decrease.


My Department has powers under the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1951 to issue permits to capture hares from the wild for hare coursing. Recent legal advice has confirmed that the Department might be acting unlawfully if it were to adopt a blanket policy of not granting these permits. The repeat survey and assessment of other protection measures will create an opportunity to re-examine this matter.
In the meantime, I recognise that issuing permits to take hares for coursing is often perceived to be inconsistent with the action plan. Therefore, although this other work is under way, I will ask officials to re-examine the evidence to determine the impact of netting hares on that animal’s conservation status.

Tree Preservation Orders

5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail (a) the number of requests made to the Planning Service in the past five years to apply tree preservation orders to protect trees under threat and (b) the number of tree preservation orders made in that period.
(AQO1198/00)


My Department does not maintain central records of such requests. The Planning Service’s headquarters is responsible for processing tree preservation orders to protect trees under threat. However, these originate mainly as a result of a recommendation from divisional planning offices, and I am advised by officials that the majority of these requests are made without any prompting from the public. Over the past five years the Planning Service’s headquarters has received 98 recommendations for orders to be made. A total of 68 orders were made during this period.


Does the Minister accept that urgent action must be taken to protect trees, particularly in urban areas? The public is fed up with the devastation caused by property developers who move in, cut down trees and then lodge their planning applications. Unless something is done soon, many of the best examples of urban forestry and single trees throughout this Province will be destroyed. It is time that the Minister’s Department took action.


This question is important and has been asked on many occasions. As I previously reported to the Assembly, I am aware of weaknesses in the legislation, and I am considering a range of proposals for strengthening it. These proposals were originally contained in the consultation paper issued by my Department on changes to planning legislation in general. They included increases in fines and the automatic replacement of protected trees which had been removed or destroyed without consent. As a result of representations made to me on this subject I have also asked officials to consider whether further changes are needed. I hope to introduce this legislation by way of a planning amendment Bill in the next session of the Assembly.


The percentage figures quoted for tree and woodland cover in Northern Ireland are appallingly low. Does the Minister agree that this unsatisfactory situation will not be reversed solely by more stringent conservation or preservation measures?
On the contrary, a more proactive approach must be adopted. Will the Minister assure us that his Department and other relevant Departments will jointly promote a vigorous campaign of woodland development? This campaign must include reasonable and adequate compensation or incentives to farmers and other landowners.


I can assure Mr Doherty that we are very much aware of the lack of tree cover in Northern Ireland. We are thinking in terms of preservation, as that is very important. The possible cost to the Department in compensation paid in respect of a tree preservation order is also a material consideration which my Department will take into account before making an order. It is important that a balance is struck between the interests of tree protection and the interests of taxpayers. My officials will be reviewing the compensation provisions in the forthcoming planning amendment Bill.


Can the Minister advise of the specialist circumstances in which a tree preservation order is issued? Is the Minister satisfied that the current enforcement powers are adequate? If not, will he consider improvements to those powers to ensure that our trees enjoy the best possible protection, especially in urban areas such as Newtownabbey?


We are concerned about the lack of tree cover and the preservation of trees. My Department has a statutory duty in relation to trees. Where it is considered expedient to do so, the Planning Service may place a tree preservation order on trees because of their amenity value.
Articles 64 and 65 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 give the Department discretionary powers to make tree preservation orders for a number of purposes including that of the protection of woodland areas.
A tree preservation order simply prohibits the cutting down, topping or lopping of any protected trees without the Department’s consent. My Department may not decide to apply a tree preservation order if the health and condition of the trees do not merit their protection; if they are not considered to make a significant contribution to the amenity of an area; or if the trees considered to be under threat can be adequately protected by conditions attached to a planning approval.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In relation to urban areas, is there an impact, perhaps for other Departments, for buildings close to trees, preserved trees in particular instances, and parks where there is concreting close to trees? Is there another way around orders to remove trees from the immediate area?


Again cognisance is taken of where trees are situated. The objective of a tree preservation order is to retain and protect the character of an area in which woodlands, individual trees and groups of trees contribute to the visual amenity. They are also used to retain and protect the existing structure and diversity of woodlands, particularly where they offer protection to wildlife habitats, and to inform new development proposals that may have an impact on areas protected by an order.

Pollution (Larne Lough)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has expressed his concern to the Department for Regional Development regarding the pollution that is being caused in Larne Lough as a result of continuing developments in the Islandmagee, Ballycarry and Whitehead areas, where the existing sewage treatment works is overloaded.
(AQO1233/00)


Officials from the Environment and Heritage Service of my Department have been in discussions with the Water Service of the Department for Regional Development about the sewerage infrastructure serving the Islandmagee area. In particular, concerns have been expressed about discharges from the Ballystrudder waste water treatment works. I understand that the Water Service has hired consultants to report on the future provision of sewage treatment for the Islandmagee area.
Pending completion of that report, the Water Service plans to deal with the primary sewage at Ballystrudder by pumping it to the Ballycarry works for secondary treatment. Effluent from the Whitehead area is discharged into the Irish Sea rather than into Larne Lough. The treatment works at Ballycarry performs well and is not considered to be overloaded. The Environment and Heritage Service will seek to ensure through the planning consultation process, and through the regulation of discharges from the Water Service’s waste water treatment works, that future development does not proceed in the absence of an appropriate infrastructure. The Water Service is consulted about the water and sewerage aspects of relevant planning applications.


The Minister will be aware that Larne Lough is an area of special scientific interest and that Swan Island in particular is a special protection area. Does he accept, given those designations, that every effort should be made to ensure that the facilities to deal with sewage are adequate to prevent pollution? Will he make a statement on the current water quality in Larne Lough, a tidal lough with a restricted movement of waters in and out.


We are very concerned about the quality of waters wherever they may be. However, as far as Larne Lough is concerned, the Environment and Heritage Service is currently classifying waters under the Northern Ireland estuarine and coastal waters classification scheme.
That work is not complete, so a definitive assessment of the water quality in Larne Lough cannot be given at this time. However, last year’s data from the estuarine and coastal waters monitoring programme demonstrates that Larne Lough meets at least the mandatory bacteriological standards of the EU’s Bathing Water Directive. That provides an indication of the water quality, although I emphasise that Larne Lough is not a designated bathing water site.

Road Accidents

7. asked the Minister of the Environment to state how his recent promotional campaign to reduce death on the roads is being assessed and what plans he has to reinforce the message that speeding is the no.1 cause of accidents, particularly among young people.
(AQO1238/00)


My Department’s road safety promotion campaigns seek to encourage positive road user attitudes and behaviour. The campaigns’ effectiveness is measured by monitoring the extent to which targeted road users are aware of the publicity and the impact that that has on their attitudes.
This has been a sad weekend, with five deaths on our roads. A fortnight ago there were five deaths and, despite the fact that we preach and advertise consistently, this regrettable occurrence still happens. I extend the sympathy of everyone in the House to all those who have been bereaved in such tragic circumstances. It is very sad to get word that a loved one has been killed in a road accident; the "valley of tears" is a very lonesome place.
Independent research is carried out before and after each publicity campaign is launched and during its lifetime to ensure that it remains effective in changing attitudes. Excessive speed remains the principal cause of death and serious injuries, particularly among young people. My Department, the RUC and the Department for Regional Development will continue to address the problem of speeding through a combination of education, enforcement and engineering.
My Department will continue to aim the anti-speeding message at young, inexperienced drivers in particular through its ongoing publicity campaign "Slow down, boys", a new road safety web site and new initiatives made possible by the increased number of road safety education officers. The RUC will also go to schools throughout Northern Ireland with a recently piloted, anti-speeding roadshow aimed at sixth formers.


The entire House concurs with the sentiments expressed by the Minister. We offer our sympathy to those families who have been bereaved. We are grateful to the Minister for the special interest that he has taken in this subject, and we wonder how much worse it might have been had he not orchestrated this high-profile campaign. However, can the Minister tell us that all measures humanly possible are being taken to understand and to end the appalling tragedies on our roads?


We are keen to do what we can, where we can, whenever we can to ensure an end to road deaths, injuries and collisions. I assure Members that we are working on this very difficult problem. A road safety consultation document is now being circulated to focus public attention afresh on road safety. This significant theme cuts across several Departments.
Attitudes may have changed a little bit. Excessive speed is the cause of many collisions and is therefore a big issue for my Department. We are getting our message through, though perhaps not quickly enough. Research carried out after the launch in 1999 of the anti-speeding campaign "Thump" showed that nearly half of all drivers and more than 40% of 17- to 24-year-olds surveyed indicated that they had changed their driving behaviour as a result of the commercial. Fifty per cent of 17- to 24-year-old male drivers said that speeding is never a risk worth taking. That was an increase of five percentage points from the pre-campaign survey. Thirty-two per cent of 17- to 24-year-old male drivers claimed that they personally could not exceed the speed limit at all on country roads while driving safely. That was an increase of nine percentage points from the pre-campaign survey. This shows that progress is being made. However, there is still much to do.


How does the Minister envisage enforcement of the campaign to reduce deaths on the roads in terms of manpower, financial resources and man-hours, which will be reduced according to the recommendations of the Patten Report? In the Ards borough last year there were 60,000 man-hours available for policing, yet this year there will only be 32,000. How can the Minister expect the delivery of a campaign when the number of man-hours is being cut so dramatically?


I accept that the RUC is under strength at this time. I have always maintained that even though there are cameras around — and perhaps there are not enough of them yet — the best deterrent is the hands-on approach. I am sure this applies to all of us when our driving is not as good as it should be and we see a police car around. The hands-on approach makes us come to terms with driving and encourages us to drive decently, respectably and responsibly. I accept Mr Shannon’s point, and I intend to speak to the Chief Constable on this matter.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasChann Comhairle. I concur with the Minister’s expression of sympathy to all those who have been bereaved due to road accidents this weekend. I pay tribute to the Minister’s efforts to address this ongoing and terrible problem.
The promotional campaign and advertisements on this matter can certainly be described as shock tactics. Has the Minister examined the issue of signage such as that currently used in the Republic of Ireland as a consciousness-raising deterrent to speeding? It seems that that does have some measure of success in the road accident statistics in the South of Ireland.


We will certainly take steps to examine anything that we deem necessary to improve the roads situation. We will take any offers that will help us in that regard. As far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned, the road death rate there is very high. I have spoken to Mr Noel Dempsey, and he is not at all satisfied with it either. However, we will take steps to do anything, on either side of the two jurisdictions, to help each other on this matter.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Fraud

9. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the steps being taken by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to combat fraud.
(AQO1193/00)


The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) has a comprehensive range of anti-fraud measures in place in specific areas of the agency’s business. Measures include identity checking for driving licences, a number of security features on the new photo card driving licences, ownership and compliance checks for transport operator licences, identity checks for taxi, PSV, and transport operator licences, insurance and MOT compliance checks for vehicle registration and licensing. Roadside checks and wheel clamping to deter vehicle excise duty evasion are in place.
There are links with Interpol and others to ensure that imported vehicles have not been stolen or written off. There are also close links with the RUC, other police forces, Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and other Government Departments and agencies to prevent vehicle-related fraud.


I am sure that the Minister is alarmed by the extent of driver and vehicle licensing fraud in Northern Ireland. I understand that it is around 10% for ordinary car vehicles, amounting to around £11 million lost to the economy a year. Can the Minister confirm the areas of the Province where such fraud exists and at what levels? Can he tell us where it is most prominent?
Furthermore, has the Minister met with the RUC about the level of fraud? If he has not, will he give us an undertaking that he would be prepared to meet with them to discuss additional measures that they could take by way of a task team to tackle this disgraceful level of fraud in our country?


As I said earlier, we will take steps where we can to assist us in what we can do to ensure that everything is clean and above board. At this time I have no details as to where the greatest level of fraud is taking place, but if I can find out, I will certainly give him a written answer.
The most recent survey of vehicle excise duty evasion shows a 10% evasion rate in Northern Ireland, compared to 3% in Great Britain. Evasion in Northern Ireland represents a loss of some £12 million to the UK Exchequer.
The DVLNI works closely with the RUC — the primary detection authority. The agency also has responsibility for payment of penalties, fines and for prosecuting cases in court. In the current year, 1 April to 28 February, 12,000 penalties have been paid, and there were 1,849 prosecutions. The revenue collected as a result is nearly £1·6 million.
Since the introduction of wheel clamping in 1998, 2,000 vehicles have been clamped, 300 have been scrapped and 11 have been auctioned. DVLNI has plans to introduce statutory off-the-road notification and automatic number-plate-reading cameras to combat vehicle excise duty evasion.
We are examining the problem. It is not escaping our eye, and cognisance is being taken of it all.


Has the Department of the Environment given consideration to means of combating the growing problem of importation fraud, which involves new cars being imported into Northern Ireland?


A certificate of conformity must be produced for all new cars imported into Northern Ireland. The certificate proves that the vehicle meets European and British safety standards. The only exception to that is personally imported cars. To qualify for personal import status, the importer must produce evidence that he has been in a foreign country and has driven the vehicle abroad and that the vehicle is intended for his personal use.
A percentage of imported vehicles are checked via the Interpol link to ensure that they are not stolen. The agency also checks vehicle details on an electronic link with vehicle databases in Great Britain and the Netherlands. The European car and drivers information system highlights vehicles that are involved in fraud. It will be developed further in the future to include other European countries.

Road Safety Officers

10. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on the appointment of road safety officers.
(AQO1218/00)


In July 2000 I announced plans to increase the number of road safety education officers from 11 to 21. The number of officers had been reduced from 16 in 1991. Over 330 applications were received for these posts, and consequently the selection process has been protracted. Interviews are taking place, and I expect the successful candidates to be appointed by the end of the month.
The appointment of additional staff is important and will allow for the enhancement of a range of road safety activities next year. This will include a 25% increase in the number of visits to schools, with substantially increased support for teachers and participation in courses for drink drivers, which are being extended across Northern Ireland. New initiatives will be introduced, including a driver improvement course, practical child pedestrian safety training at the roadside and a new scheme for monitoring the fitting of child safety belts.


I join the Minister and others in expressing my sympathy for those who have suffered as a result of road accidents this weekend. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply, although it is worrying that we still do not have the additional road safety officers we were promised last July.
There seems to be a particular difficulty with car crashes involving young drivers at weekends, and speed is the major part of the problem. Considering that, is there not a need for a more imaginative campaign about that and some of the other issues that he has highlighted, directed at young drivers?


We will take all measures that are reasonable, legal and rational to prevent so many collisions, accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads.
There were 330 applications for the road safety education officer positions, and they do take a long time to process. The selection process has been protracted because of the high standard of the applications and the fact that so many of the candidates met the selection criteria. Procedures for recruitment and promotion are established centrally and, in the interests of equality of opportunity, must be faithfully adhered to.
We will take all action that we can to ensure that there are fewer deaths on the road, fewer collisions and fewer injuries.

Planning Applications (Strangford)

11. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the backlog in planning applications that impact upon the parliamentary constituency of Strangford.
(AQO1225/00)


My Department does not hold information about planning applications on a constituency basis. However, I can provide the Member with figures for the district council areas of Ards, Down and Castlereagh, which are wholly or partly in the Strangford constituency. At the end of February, the number of planning applications that were more than two and a half months old were 327 in Ards, 204 in Down, and 106 in Castlereagh. That is a total figure of 637.


Will the Minister concede that the backlog is having a detrimental impact? What steps is he taking to resolve the unacceptable delay in processing these major applications? Does he accept that all such delays only serve to inflate house prices in the Strangford constituency?


We are endeavouring to reduce the backlog as much as possible. In the districts mentioned in my answer the total figure of 637 represents an increase of 114, or 22%, on the figure of 523 at the end of March 2000.
The backlog in the Castlereagh district had fallen by 17·5% by the end of February. Unfortunately the backlogs in the Ards and Down districts had gone up by 55% and 11% respectively. Both districts are in the Downpatrick division of the Planning Service; that district has been particularly affected by staff shortages. I visited the Downpatrick office recently. It is under strength and needs some help because it is overworked. Staff shortages are being addressed, and I expect to see an improvement as the year progresses.
On the positive side, we have reduced the backlog by 9%. That has been achieved against an increase of 5% in the total number of applications received. I am optimistic that we will meet the target of eliminating the backlog by the end of 2002.


I wish to speak about ordinary applications. Does the Minister agree that it is totally disgraceful and unacceptable that a local council approves an application in December 2000 and yet four months later that application has not been processed and passed as approved to the applicant?


I accept what the Member has said, and I thank him for the point that he made. It is not acceptable, but it is not the case that people are doing nothing. If the Member can give me specific cases I will gladly look into them.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Speaker: Question, 11 standing in the name of Mr Hilditch, has been withdrawn.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Gerry McHugh: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether they have asked the North/South Ministerial Council to consider the introduction of legislation to control the importation of animals from Great Britain during the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1255/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: No. The North/South Ministerial Council has no locus in relation to legislation. However, one of the first protective measures introduced by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when the disease was confirmed in Great Britain was to ban the import into Northern Ireland of all live susceptible animals from Great Britain.
That was implemented on 21 February 2001 and banned the import of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. It was extended on 28 February to include horses. The ban on all these animals will stay in place while the disease risk from such imports remains high.
In addition to this internal United Kingdom ban, the European Union imposed a ban on the export of all live susceptible animals and their products to the whole of the United Kingdom. None of these animals or products can, therefore, legally enter the Republic of Ireland directly.
A meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council’s agriculture sector is planned for 6 April to consider the issues of mutual concern arising from the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak in order to supplement the obvious ongoing co-operation. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is satisfied that it has adequate and sufficient powers to control the importation of animals from Great Britain during the outbreak of the disease.

Mr Gerry McHugh: At the outset of the foot-and-mouth-disease crisis, while the Agriculture Minister was able to do something, she told us that she was powerless to stop the movement of livestock at that point, or even earlier when we first knew of the outbreak in Britain. Considering this is an all-Ireland situation, I feel that the North/South Ministerial Council should have a role in both examining this trend to address it for the future and stopping the movement of livestock from Britain to this island.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The simple reason for that is that a ban was imposed as soon as the disease was detected. However, let us also be realistic about this. We are dealing with the British Isles and a common travel area. Within that area — absent of a health risk — there is no limitation on travel. Let us also remember that this problem arose in Armagh and in Louth solely because of the illegal animal trade and smuggling that characterises that area.

Mr George Savage: Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that there is an urgent need to raise animal health standards in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that its standards of animal health and welfare are at least equal to those of the industry in Northern Ireland? Will they further agree that much greater efforts must now be placed on the control and eradication of the smuggling of livestock between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and vice versa?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree entirely. One thing we may find coming out of this unhappy episode is that there will now be a much greater realisation, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, of the need to deal with the illegal trade and to raise the measures as regards controls and safeguards to the same standards as those that exist here.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: The North/South Ministerial Council has no legislative powers in either jurisdiction. Can the First Minister tell the House if there have been discussions about the prevention of the illegal movement of animals around the country? What measures, both North and South, will be taken to prevent it?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Over the course of the previous couple of weeks the Member will have seen that there has been close, practical co-operation between the Departments of Agriculture here and in the Republic of Ireland. The issue will come up for discussion at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on 6 April. One encouraging matter has been the response in the Republic of Ireland to this, particularly the suggestions I have seen from the Irish Government on how to tighten up on the illegal trade and increase the level of safeguards there. That is promising. It would be convenient if we could co-ordinate the measures that are taken in regard to the illegal trade through a mechanism such as that.

Discussions with United States Administration

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what follow-up plans are to be set in place following the recent discussions with the new Administration of the United States of America.
(AQO1252/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: During our recent visit we had an opportunity to meet with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Members of Congress. We provided a briefing on progress made on the Programme for Government and the outstanding political issues still to be resolved. Follow-up action will be undertaken at official level via the Northern Ireland Bureau with a view to ensuring that co-operative linkages between Northern Ireland Departments and their USA counterparts are developed in ways that promote a practical understanding of our overall objectives.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it is important that these discussions move on from political matters to those of inward investment and how to assist Northern Ireland’s economy? Is it the intention of the First and Deputy First Ministers, perhaps through the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington, to make further detailed arrangements for liaison on the subject of inward investment, which was the norm in previous presidencies?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member will be aware that the First Minister and I engaged in what we regarded as an onerous but successful roadshow in the United States some time ago. As part of the briefing that we gave on the implementation of the Programme for Government to the United States Administration we emphasised the continuing importance of American investment as a critical factor in securing progress towards a peaceful, inclusive and prosperous society. The importance of establishing strong working linkages with the United States Department of Commerce was registered. It was fully accepted by those senior members of the Administration to whom we spoke.
During informal — and I stress the word "informal" — discussions in the United States I was made aware of possible plans for an American investment conference in the autumn organised by non-governmental groups. I will probably have more information about that later this week. I will keep the Member and the House informed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Deputy First Minister confirm to the House the total cost of this visit to the United States of America to the taxpayer? Will he list the officials who accompanied the First Minister and himself and confirm that on this occasion the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister did not fall out over policing? Is that a sign that the First Minister has now caved in to the Deputy First Minister’s position on policing?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for the rather predictable question. The cost of the official visit has not yet been tabulated or formulated, but no doubt, the hon Member will put down a written question when it is. The information will then be provided.
With regard to the second part of the Member’s question, three officials accompanied the First Minister, three officials accompanied the Deputy First Minister and we were both accompanied by a senior official from our Department.
The matter of policing was discussed; it was discussed during a detailed meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. As the Member rightly surmised, there was no falling-out over this issue. In relation to the part of the question that he did not ask, I was delighted to see his party leader and his Colleague Peter Robinson present in the same room as us all with the President of the United States and, I assume, pursuing the same objectives.

Mr Ivan Davis: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that, during discussion with the new American Administration, they stressed the need to proscribe the dissident Republican terrorist organisations and to take effective action to inhibit terrorist fundraising in the United States of America?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I can confirm that the First Minister raised this issue in the meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. There was a very positive response, and I can further confirm that there was no fallout over that issue.

Senior Citizens

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to ensure that senior citizens are afforded equality under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and to give an assurance that the appalling attacks on them will be addressed as a major issue for the Assembly.
(AQO1240/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Attacks on vulnerable senior citizens are cowardly. They must be deplored by all. The Executive and Assembly will wish to give every possible support to the RUC and the courts in making those responsible for such attacks answerable to the law for their crimes. Arising from the Belfast Agreement, a statutory equality duty was introduced under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Under this new equality duty one of the categories to be considered is persons of different age, which, of course, includes senior citizens.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the assurances given by the First Minister, which will come as a source of comfort to all those senior citizens who have been attacked throughout Northern Ireland. Can the First Minister go further and assure the House that there is an inter-agency approach to protecting the rights of senior citizens? Finally, can he assure the House that greater recognition will be given to the role of the voluntary bodies, such as St Vincent de Paul, Help the Aged and the Salvation Army, which play a vital role in ensuring that senior citizens really have equality?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I thank the Member for his question, and I note that there have been some very unpleasant incidents in his constituency which are, no doubt, very much upon his mind. On the question of an inter-agency approach among voluntary agencies, we recognise the essential work carried out by the voluntary and community sector in several areas, particularly in work with, and for, the elderly. The Executive financially support a number of organisations which assist the elderly, including Help the Aged and St Vincent de Paul.

Mr Jim Wilson: Does the First Minister agree that the disgraceful assaults on senior citizens are symptomatic of disregard for elderly people in general? Will he assure me that he will start to redress the problem by giving a commitment to provision for elderly people in the single equality Bill?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The single equality Bill will draw together measures with regard to anti-discrimination and the equality duty under section 75. I am not sure that anything that we would do under that heading will deal directly with the issue of assaults on the elderly. That is essentially a police issue. Of course, if there are ways in which we can deal with that latter point, we will.

Mr Jim Shannon: I note the First Minister’s comments. Does he agree that our senior citizens have made an excellent contribution to society? How will his office address equality in relation to ageism and the fact that at 60 or 65 years of age senior citizens still have a very valuable contribution to make to society?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We will be going out to consultation on the single equality Bill quite soon. The Member will see that there are a number of issues raised in that which we can deal with. The substantive point he makes is one with which I would agree. Although people may retire at the age of 60 or 65, many of them are still capable of making a very significant contribution to society, and we want to encourage that.

Agriculture Industry: Support from Executive EU Office

Mr P J Bradley: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the level of service and support that the Northern Ireland agriculture industry can expect from the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels.
(AQO1195/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Brussels office will provide support for the Executive as a whole, but providing support and other services to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development as she helps the Northern Ireland agriculture industry through a difficult time will be a high priority in the coming months. The head of the office has now taken up post in Brussels.

Mr P J Bradley: Does the Deputy First Minister accept that, because of the special significance of the common agricultural policy for farming and rural development, it is essential that we have agricultural expertise in the Northern Ireland office in Brussels?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Staff in the Brussels office will work for all Departments in accordance with priorities that will be agreed by the Departments. The special significance of EU agricultural policy means that agriculture will have a high priority in the Brussels office. It is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to set out policy in that area and to determine the nature of its negotiations.
The staff of the Brussels office, working closely with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will develop contacts with agriculture experts in UKRep and in the Commission and pursue relevant lines of enquiry. Should the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development decide that it needs a dedicated agriculture expert in the Brussels office, we would discuss how that need would be met.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the Deputy First Minister say how much it has cost to set up the Brussels office? How has the project exceeded its budget by so much?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The project has overrun because of internal regulations there and the need to refurbish the office. I understand that the office will be finally and fully open by the end of April. The notional cost was £450,000, which will, of course, be increased by the cost of fitting out the office in such a way that it can offer a proper service to the Executive and to Members of the Assembly who might require assistance while in Brussels, and promote Northern Ireland interests in the European Union.

Mr David Ford: The Deputy First Minister referred to liaison between the Northern Ireland Executive office in Brussels and agriculture experts in UKRep. How will the Northern Ireland view be put directly to the Commission, without being mediated through UKRep, when Great Britain’s interests are not the same as ours?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Our message will be conveyed directly by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain. We need to know about what is coming on-stream and about how we might bring benefits to Northern Ireland agriculture. That will be the benefit of having both the office and the expertise of UKRep.

Single Equality Bill

Mrs Annie Courtney: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on plans for consultation on a single equality Bill.
(AQO1251/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Programme for Government contains a commitment to initiate consultation on a single equality Bill. The preliminary consultation will be on the scope and content of the Bill and will be open and wide-ranging. Our office is planning to hold seminars to discuss what should be included in the Bill, in addition to inviting written comment. Consideration will be given to holding additional meetings for interested groups.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Will there be consultation on the draft Bill itself?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Yes. Our timetable for the Bill includes two consultations. The first consultation on the scope and content of the Bill will begin soon and will be open and wide-ranging. A second consultation, focusing on the draft Bill itself, will be held in 2002. After we settle the scope and range of matters, a draft Bill will be published and people will be able to consult on the detail, as well as on the general issues. An equality impact assessment will be carried out on the draft Bill and will be incorporated, along with a regulatory impact assessment, in that consultation.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We were led to expect the consultation to begin in early spring. Can the Minister be more specific in identifying a date when the consultation will take place, and also give the reasons for the delay in beginning consultations?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There are several complex issues to be considered in this matter. It is our intention to go out to consultation as soon as possible. We had hoped that that would begin in April, but the Member will notice that I have been careful not to give a commitment on that matter. There are other factors floating around — I think "floating around" is the appropriate term — that may cause problems.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the First Minister confirm that in deciding upon the scope of this equality Bill in Northern Ireland, consideration will be given to the wider UK context of equality provision, especially in the light of recent relevant court cases?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Some of the matters that we will have to consider actually come from outside the UK, such as the Equal Treatment Directive and the Race Directive. In dealing with those, as with any other fundamental matter of human rights, one has to ensure that there is no geographical discrimination within the state, and the state is the United Kingdom. The point was graphically raised several years ago in a case brought by a person who was employed in this Building, a MrDudgeon, in which the European Courts held that there has to be equality of treatment within the state.

Unemployment Differentials (TSN Action Plans)

Ms Carmel Hanna: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what account is taken of unemployment differentials in the development and implementation of New TSN action plans.
(AQO1247/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Programme for Government explicitly recognises the importance of tackling community differentials in unemployment. That is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which commits us to the goal of progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities. New TSN is the key Executive policy for addressing social deprivation. It aims to tackle social need and social exclusion by targeting efforts and available resources within existing departmental programmes towards people, groups and areas in greatest social need.
New TSN aims to contribute to the reduction of inequalities among different sections of society by consistently addressing the problems and people who are objectively shown to be in greatest social need. New TSN should, over time, contribute to the erosion of those inequalities. However, it may be necessary to agree objective measures of inequality as a matter of urgency, before any measurement is used in fulfilment of the Good Friday Agreement. For example, we will develop a new up-to-date assessment of the geographical distribution of deprivation.
In addition, as our New TSN publication, ‘Making It Work’, makes clear, the Equality Commission has been empowered to advise on the community differential in unemployment. It has also been empowered to advise Government on setting benchmark measures for the future reduction of the unemployment differential, involving bringing together representatives of employers, employees, the political parties and other interests. The devolved Administration is committed to working co-operatively with the Equality Commission in all of those tasks.

Ms Carmel Hanna: How will progress on New TSN be monitored?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Departments are implementing the actions and objections in their action plans as published in ‘Making It Work’, and the Executive Committee will be keeping a very close watch on progress on the New TSN action plans across all Departments. Ministers will provide up-to-date progress reports. Every Department will thoroughly review its action plan each year and update it to take account of progress, building in new targets to follow those that have been completed.
Each year the Executive will publish a New TSN annual report so that people will be able to see for themselves what has been achieved during each year. There will be an evaluation of New TSN that will report in 2002 and that will include the involvement of external experts. The outcome of the evaluation will feed into future thinking about New TSN.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his detailed and reassuring response. If such differential is addressed, can the Deputy First Minister assure the House that it will take into account and be directed at the areas of traditional high unemployment which have a worse differential than any other area in the Six Counties — the north-west and the Foyle constituency?

Mr Seamus Mallon: New TSN is not only targeted at people, areas or groups in society that transcend urban boundaries and electoral ward boundaries. We must ensure that a pen picture is created for each area. If that were done on an electoral ward basis, that pen picture would be especially useful for all of us.
In areas that do not suffer from social deprivation there are pockets and parts that are in need, and they must be dealt with. The Executive await the report that has been commissioned from Mike Noble. It is hoped that when those benchmarks are applied we will get proper pen pictures for the whole of the North of Ireland and all the areas that require TSN will be identified — including those pockets in areas that do not have this problem.
I understand what the Member is saying about Derry — and it also applies to Belfast — and about the areas where urban regeneration is taking place. This is useful not as a means to end the problem but as a start to getting to grips with it.

Mr Derek Hussey: I have listened very carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s replies. Can he confirm to the House that much work remains to be done to ascertain a truly accurate understanding of the labour market in Northern Ireland? Further to that, will he tell the House the true reason for the limited unemployment differentials that still exist?

Mr Seamus Mallon: A great amount of work has still to be done, and the Executive have to devise the best ways in which to tackle that problem. We all recognise that there is no one path to it, but that there are various aspects of the problem given the people, areas and groups in society to which it applies. Most important of all — as with any problem — we must recognise that there is a problem and that it has to be dealt with. This is not to be a matter of debate for the Assembly or elsewhere, but it is a problem that has to be dealt with if we are ever going to build the type of stable society that we wish for.

Commissioner for Children

Mr Billy Armstrong: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether consultation was undertaken with the Government and other devolved Administrations when formulating policy on the appointment of a commissioner for children.
(AQO1200/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: A comprehensive consultation process on the issues of a children’s commissioner and a strategy for children is currently under way. As part of that process officials are liaising with the Government at Westminster and the other devolved Administrations to gather information on best practice in those jurisdictions and elsewhere.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Is the First Minister aware that Scotland and Wales have also moved to appoint a children’s commissioner. Given the opportunity that presents itself for the exchange of knowledge and information, will he assure the House that close working relationships will be established with children’s commissioners in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As part of the consultation process on the proposal for a children’s commissioner for NorthernIreland, we are already in discussion with the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales about arrangements there. The commissioner will be independent of Government, so it will be a matter for him or her to develop working relationships with commissioners in other jurisdictions. I would be amazed if they did not wish to do that as a matter of priority.

Mr David Ervine: Does the First Minister share the belief that there should be a requirement for the commissioner to be proactive and have the capacity to direct the security services to deal with circumstances where there is a belief that children are not being properly dealt with?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will respond to that question. The time is up.

Regional Development

Mr Speaker: Question 13, standing in the name of Mr Hilditch, has been withdrawn.

Belfast-Bangor Railway

Mr Alan McFarland: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline when the Bangor rail line will be relaid.
(AQO1229/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Translink has advised me that the site works for the relaying of the Belfast-Bangor railway line are due to commence on 6August2001, with full completion of the project due by 22December2001. The work will entail the relaying of some 23miles of track, representing investment of the order of almost £15million. It is another step towards the achievement of the consolidation option for the rail network outlined in the railways task force interim report and for which the Assembly agreed funding in December2000.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Mr Alan McFarland: I thank the Minister for his most welcome answer. He will know that the Bangor line is the flagship of new rail commuter arrangements for the Belfast metropolitan area with new rails, new trains, a new station and new park-and-ride facilities. Why is there such a row between the Bangor Chamber of Commerce and Translink over the use of the Abbey Street car park as a park-and-ride facility — a row that may blight the opening of the new station on Thursday?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I understand that there are some difficulties, but I am unaware of the precise detail of any problems that have arisen with Bangor Chamber of Commerce. However, I am told that the work will start as scheduled. I will undertake, as a result of what MrMcFarland has said, to investigate whether any delay will arise as a result of the problems he has just outlined.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Department for Regional Development intend to do something about a light rail system in and around Belfast to relieve congestion and the various defects in the public transport system? In the absence of a light rail system, is there a possibility of upgrading the existing system, or doing whatever it takes to provide a more adequate public transport system in the city?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The issue of light rail and other shifts of modal transportation are being discussed as part of the regional transportation strategy, which, as the Member will know, we hope to introduce to the Assembly in the next three or four months.
Issues such as the light rail system, or any advanced transportation system that presently does not exist in the Belfast metropolitan area, will be considered as part of the strategy. However, I am sure that the Member would not expect me to pre-empt the outcome of the transportation strategy.
I had a very useful meeting last Friday — the first with many of those involved — about the development of the strategy. The issues raised by the Member will form one of many strands that will be examined as a result of the developing transportation strategy throughout Northern Ireland.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Following Mr McFarland’s question regarding the Bangor line, I welcome the Minister’s statement on the commencement of the work. Can he assure me that, as well as talking to the Chamber of Commerce, passengers and residents of the area will be advised about the commencement and what is happening throughout the relaying of the line?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I give that undertaking. Translink anticipates that the work can be concentrated into a short period of time through the use of a special relay train. The work will be carried out during a 20-week period. During that period, single-line operation will be required from Monday to Friday and the line will be closed each Saturday and Sunday. Translink will be issuing a revised timetable during the period of single-line operation. I will undertake to ensure that local residents are consulted in advance of any of these changes.

Unadopted Roads and Services (Prospect Area, Carrickfergus)

Mr Roy Beggs: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to advise if the Roads Service will be appointing consultants and subcontractors to upgrade the unadopted roads and services in the Prospect area of Carrickfergus and to detail when the improvements will take place.
(AQO1234/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I mentioned in answer to the Member’s question on 5 March, my Department’s Roads Service issued a formal notice giving the developer of the Prospect area of Carrickfergus 28 days to commence the work necessary to bring the roads up to adoption standard. That period expired on 15 March and as the developer did not respond, the Roads Service moved quickly to appoint a contractor to undertake the necessary remedial work. Our contractor has been on site for about one week and the work should be completed by the end of April. The cost will be recovered from the developer’s bond.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the Minister’s answer. I was not aware of that when I placed the question two weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that the Roads Service, which is under his departmental control, has been slow in the past to bring developers to account to ensure that roads and services are brought up to the required standard? Can he assure me that the Roads Service will press the needs of residents rather than be perceived to be reluctant to draw down developer’s bonds and thus upgrade the roads and services that local residents require?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I understand the frustrations, particularly when there is an inordinately long period of time for the developer to respond. The statutory position is that the responsibility for constructing roads and sewers in new developments lies with developers. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 gives my Department the right to take action when developers fail to fulfil this obligation. Roads Service practice is to make every effort possible to persuade developers to meet their responsibilities voluntarily. However, as a last resort my Department is certainly prepared to use its statutory powers, as has been demonstrated in the case of the Prospect development.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Is the Minister still confident that the various programmes to upgrade the Maiden City to Aughnacloy section of the trans-European route are on schedule? Is funding guaranteed so that the Strabane bypass, and others, can be assured over the next three years?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon Friend for his question and for the way in which he was able to weave that matter into the question.
I wish I were in a position to guarantee funding for these schemes. However, I understand that the Minster of Finance and Personnel may throw light on some of these schemes very shortly. I assure the Member that I am doing everything in my power to ensure that the finance required by my Department to carry out priority road schemes in the major works preparation pool is received so that we can build all of the roads, including those he has referred to.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I am almost tempted to ask about the A8 to Larne, but I will not do so.
Can the Minister assure the House that all will be done to ensure that road and housing developments will be adopted as quickly as possible? This is a problem not just in Carrickfergus but in several new developments throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assure the Member that despite the delays that unfortunately have become a feature in some areas of Northern Ireland, my Department’s Roads Service is doing all it can to ensure that developers fulfil their obligations. Where developers do not do so, the Department will take action against them similar to that outlined previously with regard to Carrickfergus. If other developers default, we will take the same necessary action.

Road Improvements (Comber Area): Vesting of Land

Mrs Iris Robinson: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to list the areas where land has been vested for road improvements in the Comber area in the past two years.
(AQO1224/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: My Department’s Roads Service has vested no land for road improvements in the Comber area in the past two years. However, it is in the process of vesting land for stage 2 of the Comber bypass scheme as well as realigning 500m of the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Can the Minister assure me that the Comber bypass will go ahead regardless of the outcome of the planning application, which included the Comber bypass?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Comber bypass, as in so many of these instances, is one of a number of schemes where I require the necessary resources to ensure that not only do they begin but that they are completed.
The hon Member referred to a recent planning application — the result of which was announced last Friday — which referred to a residential neighbourhood development and included the bypass and a new junction to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposal. Planning Services’ notice of opinion to refuse that housing development covered only that particular version of the bypass. However, my Department already holds a valid planning approval for the original version, so the Comber bypass scheme is not affected by the recent planning announcement.

John Taylor: The decision taken by the Department of the Environment to reject the planning application in respect of the Riverside development in Comber was regrettable and deplorable. The project would have built a bypass without cost to the public purse. Will the Minister ensure that, irrespective of that deplorable decision, the Comber bypass will proceed in accordance with the previous schedule? Will he fight to secure the funds that are now necessary, owing to the rejection of the planning application?

Mr Gregory Campbell: It is good to see the Member back in the House again. I shall take all necessary steps to ensure that I have the resources to construct each of the schemes in the major works preparation pool. I pay no less attention to the Comber bypass than I do to other road schemes. I know that if I were to mention all of those schemes, Members would add more to the list.
I shall make whatever bids and representations are necessary to ensure that the Comber bypass proceeds.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Minister mentioned the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam. In view of the fact that money was taken from a project to provide a much needed footpath in Kircubbin some years ago and that the Flowdam project shows no signs of coming to fruition, will the money be returned to the budget and used to provide a much needed footpath in Kircubbin?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I cannot comment immediately on the issue of funding for a footpath that was, as the Member said, withdrawn some years ago. However, I undertake to investigate that matter.
The procedures for vesting the land required for the minor works scheme to realign 500m of the A22 Killinchy road at Flowdam have begun. An area of 1·68 hectares will be vested.

Housing (Brownfield Sites)

Mr Sammy Wilson: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development, in relation to the draft regional strategic framework for Northern Ireland, ‘Shaping Our Future’, to outline the basis on which recommendations were made to build a percentage of new homes on brownfield sites.
(AQO1254/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The draft regional strategic framework, which was the subject of a public examination in 1999, set targets for the share of residential development to be located in existing urban areas to reduce greenfield extensions. The targets up to 2010 were 55% for the Belfast metropolitan area and 40% for Londonderry and each regional town. The targets were set in comparison with a 60% target for England by 2008 and in the knowledge that 55% brownfield development was being achieved in some cities in England. The local targets also recognised the fact that Northern Ireland is less urbanised than many other regions of the United Kingdom.
The panel that reported on the public examination recommended a minimum brownfield target of 40% for Northern Ireland but said that more challenging targets should be set for individual settlements using the area plan process, which would, in turn, be informed by urban capacity studies. In recent discussions on the final draft of the regional development strategy, the Regional Development Committee expressed serious concern that the minimum regional target for brownfield housing development is too low. I am convinced that there is a compelling case for setting a more challenging and ambitious target, which will support the continuing efforts to regenerate our towns and cities. I reassure the House that, in setting the most appropriate target for brownfield development in the regional development strategy, I will take seriously the concerns expressed by the Regional Development Committee and other Members.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but does he not agree that the 40% target as it now stands is ridiculously low? Given that no urban capacity has as yet been completed, does he not agree that to have publicly set such a target is wrong and dangerous, insofar as it will lead to more and more pressure on greenfield sites? Does he agree — and perhaps he will look at the figure again — that there will be a substantial increase in the proportion of building to be carried out on brownfield sites and that it will be the equivalent of that set for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Several Members have expressed this view, and I share it. In relation to the establishment of a figure, part of the difficulty is that — whether it be 40%, 50%, 60% or more — it almost inevitably becomes the base line against which developers and the wider community expect all development to be set. I am reluctant to be drawn into a hard-and-fast figure from which there will be no deviation. To repeat what I said about examining the figure, I want to see a more ambitious target being set. I will not be drawn into a precise figure, but I know the Regional Development Committee is in the process of expressing a view. I am acquainted with that view, and I will take it, and the views expressed by my hon Friend and others, into account when that time comes with the regional development strategy.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister agree that the setting of such development targets in Northern Ireland is more difficult than it would be in England? In particular, does he agree that the difference between the urban area of Belfast and the rural area is significant and that the requirement for them to be treated separately is greater?
I understand and welcome his comments about the urban development capacity and the limits which should be imposed on it in the Belfast city area, but I am most concerned about the figure being too restrictive. We do not have the brownfield capacity in rural areas in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gregory Campbell: If the tenor of the Member’s question is the distinctiveness between the Belfast metropolitan area and the rest of largely rural Northern Ireland, then I readily concur. We must establish a figure which is ambitious but also realistic. We are in the process of determining that figure. We will decide what is appropriate when the Regional Development Committee has had an opportunity to examine the matter and has passed its views to me. It will have to be appropriate both for rural Northern Ireland and for the urban centre that is the Greater Belfast area.

Mr David Ervine: Does the Minister agree that we are entitled to be disquieted when he now rejects a figure which was offered to strategic planning by his Department? Does he accept the reality that the higher he sets the figure for brownfield build, the more he creates an ethos? Does he also accept that, in turn, it will be in the minds of the developers that they have to adjust to the circumstances of the new ethos which the Minister himself created?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Perhaps the Member did not hear the reference in the response. I will repeat it so that it will be absolutely clear. I am convinced that there is a compelling case for setting a more challenging and ambitious target which will support the continuing efforts to regenerate and breathe new life into our cities and towns. I have not come to a conclusion as to what the figure should be. I am not indicating a predetermined outcome, rather I am indicating what I am looking at. I am awaiting the definitive response of the Regional Development Committee, and I will then come to a conclusion which will be brought before the Assembly within a matter of a few months.

Toome Bypass

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give an update on the proposed Toome bypass project following his recent announcement that the sale of Belfast harbour will not proceed.
(AQO1211/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: My Department’s Roads Service is continuing to make good progress on the Toome bypass scheme. In particular, both the environmental assessment and planning stages of the scheme have been completed. One objection has been received to the notice of intention to make a vesting order, which was advertised in February 2001. The Roads Service is seeking to resolve this objection with the relevant landowner. A geotechnical contractor has completed approximately 70% of the ground investigations on the site. We have appointed Ove Arup & Partners, who are consultants of international standing, as project managers for the scheme. Contractors have been invited to apply for inclusion in a restricted list of contractors who will be asked to tender for the design and construct contract.
My decision not to proceed with the sale of the port of Belfast will not directly impact on this scheme. With regard to funding, the indicative allocations made available to my Department are not sufficient to fund all of the schemes in the major works preparation pool. I have, however, made very strong bids to the Executive programme funds for the Toome bypass and other schemes. I am hopeful that I shall be successful with these bids.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive detail in his reply. However, I was hoping that he would indicate what impact the decision about the Belfast harbour estate has had on the prioritisation of projects. We have already heard reference in earlier questions to other very worthy and relevant projects. We would like reassurance that the Toome bypass project will continue to receive top priority.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The issue of the possible sale of the Port of Belfast has been in the public domain for a number of years. I understand that in the year 1999-2000, public expenditure in Northern Ireland was planned on the basis of a £70 million receipt from the sale of the port. As it did not sell, the impact was borne in that year by reducing expenditure across Northern Ireland programmes generally. Expenditure plans for future years, which have been approved by the Assembly, include most of the funding for the Chancellor’s initiative schemes, including the Toome bypass, and do not depend on any such receipt.

Mr Gardiner Kane: If the Minister is successful in obtaining funding for several schemes in the major works preparation pool, when will he be in a position to make announcements about other schemes in the pool?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his question, which is almost predicated upon positive news. I hope for positive news.
I cannot predict events, but, if I am successful, I hope to develop schemes that have been debated at Question Time, during Adjournment debates and in correspondence with Members and MPs. Sometimes MPs do not correspond with me to make requests, but raise issues through the media — more of that later. If there is a response, I hope to move very quickly on several schemes.

Rev Robert Coulter: Has the Minister considered the possibility of a private finance initiative, namely a toll system, for the Toome bypass? Since there is an alternative route for those who do not wish to pay a toll, does he agree that this is an ideal opportunity to test such proposals?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I agree that in the foreseeable future there will be opportunities for the private sector to play a role in major infrastructural investments in Northern Ireland. The Member will be aware that in the past three weeks I paid a visit to the eastern seaboard of the United States where I investigated that very possibility. I hope that it will not be necessary to choose this option for the Toome bypass and that I will be in a position to announce that we are proceeding with this scheme. We could then examine the possibility of private sector finance for other much needed schemes in Northern Ireland.

The Environment

Sir John Gorman: Question 3, standing in the name of Mr Arthur Doherty, has been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and a written response will be given. Question 8, in the name of Mr Close, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and he will receive a written answer. Question 18, in the name of Mr Byrne, will also be responded to in writing; it has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Irish Hare

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his proposals to provide greater protection for the Irish hare.
(AQO1210/00)

Mr Sam Foster: In October 2000 I launched a species action plan for the Irish hare. The action plan will be implemented by a partnership, which will include the Ulster Wildlife Trust, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service. The plan deals with the decline, over the past three decades, in the number of hares in Northern Ireland. The action points in the plan includes the completion of a repeat survey of hares. The Environment and Heritage Service will commission this work once the current restrictions caused by the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak have been lifted. When I have assessed the repeat survey and the impact of the other three measures in the species action plan, I will consider what further steps, if any, need to be taken.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland that the catching of hares, an endangered species, still takes place? Hares are taken to contained sites, chased by greyhounds that happen to have muzzles on them, and are not necessarily returned to the places from where they were caught in the first instance. Given that the Department is granting licences for this practice, the hare population is continuing to decrease.

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has powers under the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1951 to issue permits to capture hares from the wild for hare coursing. Recent legal advice has confirmed that the Department might be acting unlawfully if it were to adopt a blanket policy of not granting these permits. The repeat survey and assessment of other protection measures will create an opportunity to re-examine this matter.
In the meantime, I recognise that issuing permits to take hares for coursing is often perceived to be inconsistent with the action plan. Therefore, although this other work is under way, I will ask officials to re-examine the evidence to determine the impact of netting hares on that animal’s conservation status.

Tree Preservation Orders

Mr Jim Wells: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail (a) the number of requests made to the Planning Service in the past five years to apply tree preservation orders to protect trees under threat and (b) the number of tree preservation orders made in that period.
(AQO1198/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department does not maintain central records of such requests. The Planning Service’s headquarters is responsible for processing tree preservation orders to protect trees under threat. However, these originate mainly as a result of a recommendation from divisional planning offices, and I am advised by officials that the majority of these requests are made without any prompting from the public. Over the past five years the Planning Service’s headquarters has received 98 recommendations for orders to be made. A total of 68 orders were made during this period.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Minister accept that urgent action must be taken to protect trees, particularly in urban areas? The public is fed up with the devastation caused by property developers who move in, cut down trees and then lodge their planning applications. Unless something is done soon, many of the best examples of urban forestry and single trees throughout this Province will be destroyed. It is time that the Minister’s Department took action.

Mr Sam Foster: This question is important and has been asked on many occasions. As I previously reported to the Assembly, I am aware of weaknesses in the legislation, and I am considering a range of proposals for strengthening it. These proposals were originally contained in the consultation paper issued by my Department on changes to planning legislation in general. They included increases in fines and the automatic replacement of protected trees which had been removed or destroyed without consent. As a result of representations made to me on this subject I have also asked officials to consider whether further changes are needed. I hope to introduce this legislation by way of a planning amendment Bill in the next session of the Assembly.

Mr Arthur Doherty: The percentage figures quoted for tree and woodland cover in Northern Ireland are appallingly low. Does the Minister agree that this unsatisfactory situation will not be reversed solely by more stringent conservation or preservation measures?
On the contrary, a more proactive approach must be adopted. Will the Minister assure us that his Department and other relevant Departments will jointly promote a vigorous campaign of woodland development? This campaign must include reasonable and adequate compensation or incentives to farmers and other landowners.

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure Mr Doherty that we are very much aware of the lack of tree cover in Northern Ireland. We are thinking in terms of preservation, as that is very important. The possible cost to the Department in compensation paid in respect of a tree preservation order is also a material consideration which my Department will take into account before making an order. It is important that a balance is struck between the interests of tree protection and the interests of taxpayers. My officials will be reviewing the compensation provisions in the forthcoming planning amendment Bill.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Can the Minister advise of the specialist circumstances in which a tree preservation order is issued? Is the Minister satisfied that the current enforcement powers are adequate? If not, will he consider improvements to those powers to ensure that our trees enjoy the best possible protection, especially in urban areas such as Newtownabbey?

Mr Sam Foster: We are concerned about the lack of tree cover and the preservation of trees. My Department has a statutory duty in relation to trees. Where it is considered expedient to do so, the Planning Service may place a tree preservation order on trees because of their amenity value.
Articles 64 and 65 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 give the Department discretionary powers to make tree preservation orders for a number of purposes including that of the protection of woodland areas.
A tree preservation order simply prohibits the cutting down, topping or lopping of any protected trees without the Department’s consent. My Department may not decide to apply a tree preservation order if the health and condition of the trees do not merit their protection; if they are not considered to make a significant contribution to the amenity of an area; or if the trees considered to be under threat can be adequately protected by conditions attached to a planning approval.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In relation to urban areas, is there an impact, perhaps for other Departments, for buildings close to trees, preserved trees in particular instances, and parks where there is concreting close to trees? Is there another way around orders to remove trees from the immediate area?

Mr Sam Foster: Again cognisance is taken of where trees are situated. The objective of a tree preservation order is to retain and protect the character of an area in which woodlands, individual trees and groups of trees contribute to the visual amenity. They are also used to retain and protect the existing structure and diversity of woodlands, particularly where they offer protection to wildlife habitats, and to inform new development proposals that may have an impact on areas protected by an order.

Pollution (Larne Lough)

Mr Roy Beggs: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has expressed his concern to the Department for Regional Development regarding the pollution that is being caused in Larne Lough as a result of continuing developments in the Islandmagee, Ballycarry and Whitehead areas, where the existing sewage treatment works is overloaded.
(AQO1233/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Officials from the Environment and Heritage Service of my Department have been in discussions with the Water Service of the Department for Regional Development about the sewerage infrastructure serving the Islandmagee area. In particular, concerns have been expressed about discharges from the Ballystrudder waste water treatment works. I understand that the Water Service has hired consultants to report on the future provision of sewage treatment for the Islandmagee area.
Pending completion of that report, the Water Service plans to deal with the primary sewage at Ballystrudder by pumping it to the Ballycarry works for secondary treatment. Effluent from the Whitehead area is discharged into the Irish Sea rather than into Larne Lough. The treatment works at Ballycarry performs well and is not considered to be overloaded. The Environment and Heritage Service will seek to ensure through the planning consultation process, and through the regulation of discharges from the Water Service’s waste water treatment works, that future development does not proceed in the absence of an appropriate infrastructure. The Water Service is consulted about the water and sewerage aspects of relevant planning applications.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister will be aware that Larne Lough is an area of special scientific interest and that Swan Island in particular is a special protection area. Does he accept, given those designations, that every effort should be made to ensure that the facilities to deal with sewage are adequate to prevent pollution? Will he make a statement on the current water quality in Larne Lough, a tidal lough with a restricted movement of waters in and out.

Mr Sam Foster: We are very concerned about the quality of waters wherever they may be. However, as far as Larne Lough is concerned, the Environment and Heritage Service is currently classifying waters under the Northern Ireland estuarine and coastal waters classification scheme.
That work is not complete, so a definitive assessment of the water quality in Larne Lough cannot be given at this time. However, last year’s data from the estuarine and coastal waters monitoring programme demonstrates that Larne Lough meets at least the mandatory bacteriological standards of the EU’s Bathing Water Directive. That provides an indication of the water quality, although I emphasise that Larne Lough is not a designated bathing water site.

Road Accidents

Mr John Dallat: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to state how his recent promotional campaign to reduce death on the roads is being assessed and what plans he has to reinforce the message that speeding is the no.1 cause of accidents, particularly among young people.
(AQO1238/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department’s road safety promotion campaigns seek to encourage positive road user attitudes and behaviour. The campaigns’ effectiveness is measured by monitoring the extent to which targeted road users are aware of the publicity and the impact that that has on their attitudes.
This has been a sad weekend, with five deaths on our roads. A fortnight ago there were five deaths and, despite the fact that we preach and advertise consistently, this regrettable occurrence still happens. I extend the sympathy of everyone in the House to all those who have been bereaved in such tragic circumstances. It is very sad to get word that a loved one has been killed in a road accident; the "valley of tears" is a very lonesome place.
Independent research is carried out before and after each publicity campaign is launched and during its lifetime to ensure that it remains effective in changing attitudes. Excessive speed remains the principal cause of death and serious injuries, particularly among young people. My Department, the RUC and the Department for Regional Development will continue to address the problem of speeding through a combination of education, enforcement and engineering.
My Department will continue to aim the anti-speeding message at young, inexperienced drivers in particular through its ongoing publicity campaign "Slow down, boys", a new road safety web site and new initiatives made possible by the increased number of road safety education officers. The RUC will also go to schools throughout Northern Ireland with a recently piloted, anti-speeding roadshow aimed at sixth formers.

Mr John Dallat: The entire House concurs with the sentiments expressed by the Minister. We offer our sympathy to those families who have been bereaved. We are grateful to the Minister for the special interest that he has taken in this subject, and we wonder how much worse it might have been had he not orchestrated this high-profile campaign. However, can the Minister tell us that all measures humanly possible are being taken to understand and to end the appalling tragedies on our roads?

Mr Sam Foster: We are keen to do what we can, where we can, whenever we can to ensure an end to road deaths, injuries and collisions. I assure Members that we are working on this very difficult problem. A road safety consultation document is now being circulated to focus public attention afresh on road safety. This significant theme cuts across several Departments.
Attitudes may have changed a little bit. Excessive speed is the cause of many collisions and is therefore a big issue for my Department. We are getting our message through, though perhaps not quickly enough. Research carried out after the launch in 1999 of the anti-speeding campaign "Thump" showed that nearly half of all drivers and more than 40% of 17- to 24-year-olds surveyed indicated that they had changed their driving behaviour as a result of the commercial. Fifty per cent of 17- to 24-year-old male drivers said that speeding is never a risk worth taking. That was an increase of five percentage points from the pre-campaign survey. Thirty-two per cent of 17- to 24-year-old male drivers claimed that they personally could not exceed the speed limit at all on country roads while driving safely. That was an increase of nine percentage points from the pre-campaign survey. This shows that progress is being made. However, there is still much to do.

Mr Jim Shannon: How does the Minister envisage enforcement of the campaign to reduce deaths on the roads in terms of manpower, financial resources and man-hours, which will be reduced according to the recommendations of the Patten Report? In the Ards borough last year there were 60,000 man-hours available for policing, yet this year there will only be 32,000. How can the Minister expect the delivery of a campaign when the number of man-hours is being cut so dramatically?

Mr Sam Foster: I accept that the RUC is under strength at this time. I have always maintained that even though there are cameras around — and perhaps there are not enough of them yet — the best deterrent is the hands-on approach. I am sure this applies to all of us when our driving is not as good as it should be and we see a police car around. The hands-on approach makes us come to terms with driving and encourages us to drive decently, respectably and responsibly. I accept Mr Shannon’s point, and I intend to speak to the Chief Constable on this matter.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasChann Comhairle. I concur with the Minister’s expression of sympathy to all those who have been bereaved due to road accidents this weekend. I pay tribute to the Minister’s efforts to address this ongoing and terrible problem.
The promotional campaign and advertisements on this matter can certainly be described as shock tactics. Has the Minister examined the issue of signage such as that currently used in the Republic of Ireland as a consciousness-raising deterrent to speeding? It seems that that does have some measure of success in the road accident statistics in the South of Ireland.

Mr Sam Foster: We will certainly take steps to examine anything that we deem necessary to improve the roads situation. We will take any offers that will help us in that regard. As far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned, the road death rate there is very high. I have spoken to Mr Noel Dempsey, and he is not at all satisfied with it either. However, we will take steps to do anything, on either side of the two jurisdictions, to help each other on this matter.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Fraud

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 9. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the steps being taken by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to combat fraud.
(AQO1193/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) has a comprehensive range of anti-fraud measures in place in specific areas of the agency’s business. Measures include identity checking for driving licences, a number of security features on the new photo card driving licences, ownership and compliance checks for transport operator licences, identity checks for taxi, PSV, and transport operator licences, insurance and MOT compliance checks for vehicle registration and licensing. Roadside checks and wheel clamping to deter vehicle excise duty evasion are in place.
There are links with Interpol and others to ensure that imported vehicles have not been stolen or written off. There are also close links with the RUC, other police forces, Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and other Government Departments and agencies to prevent vehicle-related fraud.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am sure that the Minister is alarmed by the extent of driver and vehicle licensing fraud in Northern Ireland. I understand that it is around 10% for ordinary car vehicles, amounting to around £11 million lost to the economy a year. Can the Minister confirm the areas of the Province where such fraud exists and at what levels? Can he tell us where it is most prominent?
Furthermore, has the Minister met with the RUC about the level of fraud? If he has not, will he give us an undertaking that he would be prepared to meet with them to discuss additional measures that they could take by way of a task team to tackle this disgraceful level of fraud in our country?

Mr Sam Foster: As I said earlier, we will take steps where we can to assist us in what we can do to ensure that everything is clean and above board. At this time I have no details as to where the greatest level of fraud is taking place, but if I can find out, I will certainly give him a written answer.
The most recent survey of vehicle excise duty evasion shows a 10% evasion rate in Northern Ireland, compared to 3% in Great Britain. Evasion in Northern Ireland represents a loss of some £12 million to the UK Exchequer.
The DVLNI works closely with the RUC — the primary detection authority. The agency also has responsibility for payment of penalties, fines and for prosecuting cases in court. In the current year, 1 April to 28 February, 12,000 penalties have been paid, and there were 1,849 prosecutions. The revenue collected as a result is nearly £1·6 million.
Since the introduction of wheel clamping in 1998, 2,000 vehicles have been clamped, 300 have been scrapped and 11 have been auctioned. DVLNI has plans to introduce statutory off-the-road notification and automatic number-plate-reading cameras to combat vehicle excise duty evasion.
We are examining the problem. It is not escaping our eye, and cognisance is being taken of it all.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Has the Department of the Environment given consideration to means of combating the growing problem of importation fraud, which involves new cars being imported into Northern Ireland?

Mr Sam Foster: A certificate of conformity must be produced for all new cars imported into Northern Ireland. The certificate proves that the vehicle meets European and British safety standards. The only exception to that is personally imported cars. To qualify for personal import status, the importer must produce evidence that he has been in a foreign country and has driven the vehicle abroad and that the vehicle is intended for his personal use.
A percentage of imported vehicles are checked via the Interpol link to ensure that they are not stolen. The agency also checks vehicle details on an electronic link with vehicle databases in Great Britain and the Netherlands. The European car and drivers information system highlights vehicles that are involved in fraud. It will be developed further in the future to include other European countries.

Road Safety Officers

Mr David Ford: 10. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on the appointment of road safety officers.
(AQO1218/00)

Mr Sam Foster: In July 2000 I announced plans to increase the number of road safety education officers from 11 to 21. The number of officers had been reduced from 16 in 1991. Over 330 applications were received for these posts, and consequently the selection process has been protracted. Interviews are taking place, and I expect the successful candidates to be appointed by the end of the month.
The appointment of additional staff is important and will allow for the enhancement of a range of road safety activities next year. This will include a 25% increase in the number of visits to schools, with substantially increased support for teachers and participation in courses for drink drivers, which are being extended across Northern Ireland. New initiatives will be introduced, including a driver improvement course, practical child pedestrian safety training at the roadside and a new scheme for monitoring the fitting of child safety belts.

Mr David Ford: I join the Minister and others in expressing my sympathy for those who have suffered as a result of road accidents this weekend. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply, although it is worrying that we still do not have the additional road safety officers we were promised last July.
There seems to be a particular difficulty with car crashes involving young drivers at weekends, and speed is the major part of the problem. Considering that, is there not a need for a more imaginative campaign about that and some of the other issues that he has highlighted, directed at young drivers?

Mr Sam Foster: We will take all measures that are reasonable, legal and rational to prevent so many collisions, accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads.
There were 330 applications for the road safety education officer positions, and they do take a long time to process. The selection process has been protracted because of the high standard of the applications and the fact that so many of the candidates met the selection criteria. Procedures for recruitment and promotion are established centrally and, in the interests of equality of opportunity, must be faithfully adhered to.
We will take all action that we can to ensure that there are fewer deaths on the road, fewer collisions and fewer injuries.

Planning Applications (Strangford)

Mrs Iris Robinson: 11. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the backlog in planning applications that impact upon the parliamentary constituency of Strangford.
(AQO1225/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department does not hold information about planning applications on a constituency basis. However, I can provide the Member with figures for the district council areas of Ards, Down and Castlereagh, which are wholly or partly in the Strangford constituency. At the end of February, the number of planning applications that were more than two and a half months old were 327 in Ards, 204 in Down, and 106 in Castlereagh. That is a total figure of 637.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Will the Minister concede that the backlog is having a detrimental impact? What steps is he taking to resolve the unacceptable delay in processing these major applications? Does he accept that all such delays only serve to inflate house prices in the Strangford constituency?

Mr Sam Foster: We are endeavouring to reduce the backlog as much as possible. In the districts mentioned in my answer the total figure of 637 represents an increase of 114, or 22%, on the figure of 523 at the end of March 2000.
The backlog in the Castlereagh district had fallen by 17·5% by the end of February. Unfortunately the backlogs in the Ards and Down districts had gone up by 55% and 11% respectively. Both districts are in the Downpatrick division of the Planning Service; that district has been particularly affected by staff shortages. I visited the Downpatrick office recently. It is under strength and needs some help because it is overworked. Staff shortages are being addressed, and I expect to see an improvement as the year progresses.
On the positive side, we have reduced the backlog by 9%. That has been achieved against an increase of 5% in the total number of applications received. I am optimistic that we will meet the target of eliminating the backlog by the end of 2002.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I wish to speak about ordinary applications. Does the Minister agree that it is totally disgraceful and unacceptable that a local council approves an application in December 2000 and yet four months later that application has not been processed and passed as approved to the applicant?

Mr Sam Foster: I accept what the Member has said, and I thank him for the point that he made. It is not acceptable, but it is not the case that people are doing nothing. If the Member can give me specific cases I will gladly look into them.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Executive Programme Funds: First Allocations

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on first allocations from the Executive programme funds.

Mr Mark Durkan: I will make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the first set of allocations from the Executive programme funds. I will also touch on the outcome of the final routine public expenditure monitoring round for the financial year that has just ended.
The Assembly will recall that a key innovation in our first Programme for Government and Budget was the creation of Executive programme funds. Our aim was to assist the development of new policies and programmes and new improved services as well as directing spending to new strategic infrastructure projects. By marshalling our resources in that way we are determined to support our agreed priorities and we can break away from the patterns of spending that applied under the period of direct rule and see — more and more — the difference that devolution involving local politicians working together can make.
We are all aware that the problems that our constituents face can only be addressed by close co-operation between Departments and by us finding local solutions to local problems. These funds are a key instrument in promoting co-operation between Departments and making them address multi-dimensional issues in a cross-cutting way. That is how we will ensure that our focus is on those whom we are trying to help and what we are trying to achieve and not on those responsible for delivery or management.
We established five Executive programme funds to achieve that change: the social inclusion and community regeneration fund, the new directions fund, the infrastructure and capital renewal fund, the service modernisation fund and the children’s fund. In total we have made resources amounting to £372 million available for these funds over the next three years.
This includes the amounts originally announced in October, which we have since supplemented when possible, most recently by adding £10 million from the February monitoring round, which I will come to later.
The Executive regard these funds as a major means to support and promote the priorities of this Administration. At the same time the Executive recognise that the creation of the funds signals a new way of working together that will take time to mature. We decided therefore to have two rounds of allocations on the funds this year. This will allow time for experience to be gained in operating the funds without committing all the resources available immediately. It will also make time for potentially very valuable proposals to be properly developed and considered at a later stage.
However, in the case of the infrastructure and capital renewal fund, it is necessary to commit resources in good time to permit investment to proceed. This means that, by and large, only a single and early allocation is feasible each year. This is reflected in my announcement today.
The purposes for the funds were set out fully in the Programme for Government and Budget documents in the autumn. The criteria we adopted to guide the processes of bidding and selection have recently been issued to the Assembly Committees. Bids were sought in January on the basis of clear guidelines to Departments describing the principles underlying the funds and including both the general criteria applicable to bids for any fund and the more specific points covering each fund separately. In total, Departments lodged 139 bids across the five funds totalling £581 million over three years, more than the total resources available in the funds, and well in excess of the amounts we intended to allocate in the first round.
All bids have been scrutinised carefully and measured against the criteria for the funds by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit working closely with all the Departments. Among other things, an assessment was made of the consistency of the proposals with the principles of New TSN and the statutory equality duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Executive have been able to draw on this analysis in considering all the bids.
For the first tranche of allocations from the Executive programme funds in the 2001-02 financial year, the Executive consider that 62 proposals should be supported across the five funds. In total, this support would amount to £146 million over the next three years. In addition, the proposals announced last week by the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment will be funded from the new directions fund. A full list of the allocations has been circulated to Members, along with a copy of my statement.
Before going into the details of the allocation to each fund, I would like to give Members an overview of what we are aiming to achieve in the first tranche in strengthening the implementation of the priorities in the Programme for Government.
The priorities which we adopted in the Programme for Government were: "Growing as a community", "Working for a healthier people", "Investing in education and schools", "Securing a competitive economy" and "Development North/South, east/west and international relations". When the Assembly commented on the draft programme, Members gave a strong emphasis on the needs of young people, a theme that is found in our first three priorities. It was in the light of such views that we placed greater emphasis on children in the revised programme which the Assembly endorsed last month and committed ourselves to a new children’s strategy.
This focus on the needs of young people is central to my announcements today, with over one third of the projects focused on the young. This is clearly the case in the specific bids on the children’s fund, but there are many other bids, under three other funds, that will make a major difference to the future of young people. A key aim is to protect the vulnerable and ensure that education is open to all, including those who might otherwise fall out of education.
The second main area on which we are making a major focus is improved health and improved health services. That is central to our overall priority of working for a healthier people. A quarter of our Executive programme fund projects are in this area. We will invest in healthier communities. A key part of our public health strategy is seeking to focus much more on the prevention of ill health. We will also start to develop hospital accommodation and use new technology and projects to improve the quality of service.
The third focus in our allocations is on promoting growth as a community, a further Programme for Government priority. We will start new pilots to see how housing estates can work together to tackle health, education and training needs, and build better community infrastructure working with district councils. We are also making a further allocation to fund the Executive’s new victims strategy.
The fourth area on which the Executive have placed special emphasis is securing a competitive economy. For this purpose, major investment is needed from the Executive. We have started to invest further in transport infrastructure through the major roads schemes, ensuring that some of the major routes in Northern Ireland are developed effectively. That is on top of the extra investment in railways announced in the Budget as a pre-allocation from the infrastructure fund.
We are also determined to find a new sustainable future for our rural economy and new opportunities for tourism, an area where it is essential that we invest for a new future. We have backed new innovative schemes to help rural areas and assist tourist fishing. We will develop our creative industries through new seed funding, seeking to encourage new skills and new employment in this growing sector.
Finally, the Programme for Government emphasises the importance of investing in modern services to update the quality of our services, laying the foundations for e-government. The Executive programme funds allocations will provide the basis for more accessible, modern services. They include actions to modernise aspects of the Health Service. We are also investing in the core hardware and software, so that the Executive can provide new e-government services. There is also action to develop our libraries as key electronic centres for the public, while also producing a new electronic job market.
We are also determined to explore, creatively and imaginatively, the scope for new sources of funds to contribute to the necessary investment, especially in infrastructure. We know that there are no panaceas or magic bullets. Misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning private finance initiatives (PFIs) and public-private partnerships (PPPs) need to be resolved. Difficulties and deficiencies need to be overcome. Seemingly attractive options that would only amount to accessing new forms of borrowing are not in themselves the answer, carrying as they do some of the limitations and complications that we must resolve.
The Executive welcome the progress made by Departments, especially the Department of Education, in pursuing new approaches. We have set aside £2 million a year to ensure that the best options are explored and examined to achieve results that have the clear potential to repay that investment in the form of acceleration of PFI and PPP projects.
In short, through these funds and through these 62 projects we have started to make major progress together across Departments on addressing the needs of the young, on improving health, on assisting communities and victims, on securing a better economic future and on modernising our services. We have proved that we can work in a co-ordinated way across Departments to create real change.
I want now to deal briefly with the first tranche of allocations that we propose to make from each of the funds. I will not go into detail on every project but instead concentrate on how these allocations will support the priorities that we have collectively agreed upon as an Executive.
I will begin with the children’s fund, which the Executive have established with the objective of providing support for children in need and young people at risk. Our children are the future, and we are determined to ensure that they have every opportunity to reach their full potential regardless of their circumstances. This fund has offered Departments a further means to demonstrate their support for children and young people, both through their own actions and through working with non-governmental organisations, including the voluntary and community sectors.
The Executive have decided that 12 projects should be supported in the first tranche of allocations from this fund, amounting to £10·5 million over the next three years. Our efforts through this fund have been focused on the most vulnerable and those children and young people in greatest need. We aim to make a significant impact on protecting children by developing specialist residential units, providing residential childcare places and supporting families. We have also recognised the needs of children with disabilities and paid particular attention to helping children who otherwise might fall out of education through a school-age mothers programme, a juvenile justice liaison service, new counselling services for pupils and referral units to support primary education. We will also make a start on the task of redeveloping the Youth Service.
I think that the Assembly will agree that these announcements mean that the children’s fund is off to a good start, but I would emphasise that this is only the start. An interdepartmental working group has been established to work with the voluntary and community sectors to develop potential projects that can be supported by allocations from this fund in the future. I look forward to seeing the ideas that it will bring forward.
I now turn to allocations from the infrastructure and capital renewal fund. The objective that the Executive have set for this fund is to support the development and renewal of strategic assets owned by the public sector or that are used to provide services of utility to the public. It is the largest of the funds in terms of resources and therefore offers the opportunity to make a significant impact on the Executive’s strategic priorities.
In the first tranche of allocations from this fund one of the Executive’s concerns has been to move forward projects that will significantly strengthen the strategic roads network. These vital assets have been neglected, and we are determined to restore them step by step. The projects now supported are on key parts of some strategic routes: the A8 Belfast to Larne route; the Toome bypass, on the main A6 Derry to Belfast route; the A1 at Loughbrickland on the Belfast to Dublin road; and the A4 between Dungannon and Enniskillen. Taken together, they are a major contribution to the process. We have retained significant flexibility in this fund, so that in due course we may be able to consider other projects that will strengthen our strategic transport, energy and telecommunications networks when such projects are at a relevant stage of development.
The fund also has a role in supporting major assets that the community depends upon for vital services. The Executive have therefore authorised support for four additional schools capital projects, comprising two primary schools, a special school and one grammar school — each of these being of top priority within the schools planning lists. We have said that the Executive will support our children and their education, and this is proof of that commitment.
The infrastructure fund will also support very important developments in the Health Service. There is an allocation to provide 13 new homes for residential childcare, with 28 new places and 58 replacement places. Money is being provided to begin the redevelopment of the Ulster Hospital, which is a vital facility for many people. We are also providing a new medium secure unit to cater for the needs of some of the most tragically stricken members of our community. In total, these and other projects being supported from the fund will account for £79 million over the next three years.
The establishment of the new directions fund signalled the Executive’s determination to promote new and innovative ways of developing and delivering public services. The allocations I am announcing from that fund today are preliminary and leave substantially larger amounts for future tranches. This will allow Departments to work together to produce further and, I hope, more distinctive bids on this fund in the future.
In beginning to set a new direction, the allocations from this fund include a seed fund for the creative industries, which will support projects designed to harness creativity and to achieve positive social, cultural, educational and economic outcomes. There are also four projects designed to improve the way the Health Service operates through improving IT and other forms of communication, to ensure that the Health Service can make use of more modern ways of working. This will reduce inefficiency and have benefits for patients that will make a difference.
New directions in education include particular initiatives to promote the social inclusion of children from groups whose first language is not English and for travellers’ children. There is also provision for expanding the number of special places available for secondary age pupils.
The proposals include some important developments in agriculture, including assistance with the development of organic farming, action to minimise pollution from farms, and action to minimise the contribution made by agriculture to the phosphorisation of soils, which is affecting our fresh waters. These follow on from the support for the beef quality scheme, which was announced in the draft Budget statement on 17 October 2000, as a pre-allocation from this fund. There is also provision in support of the road safety strategy.
The Executive are determined to ensure that new directions are taken. At the strategic and detailed levels we want to encourage new ways of doing things within the full range of the public services for which we are responsible. The ideas announced this afternoon will contribute to that objective.
I will now turn to the service modernisation fund. We have sought to find means of promoting efficiency and innovation in the delivery of services by the public sector. Our focus has been on ways to make a difference to the way services are managed and delivered for the ultimate benefit of the public.
The actions proposed include several projects to improve the IT networks in Government. These are badly needed if important functions are to be carried out more efficiently and carefully, thus providing a foundation for work to improve support from Departments for Ministers and for the Assembly, to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of services to the public.
Modernising the provision of libraries will include new electronic information services. This will represent an important enhancement of the range of services available and has potential for links with the school library system and with the public library system in the South. There is also a proposal to enhance the jobcentre online web site, which will improve online access to job vacancy information and enable clients of the jobcentres to apply for jobs online. This is an important development in electronic government. It will make a significant contribution to the objectives of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Department for Social Development.
Finally, I turn to the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration. As I explained on 12 February, this fund now includes an allocation of £2 million designed to provide a safety net on the issue of gap funding. The main point is that Departments can proceed to deal with the problems of the delay in the structural funds by anticipating that there will be draw-down money from the new round of programmes. This involves a judgement and should Department support something which ultimately does not receive support from the European programmes, this £2 million will provide a safety net from the Executive’s own resources to cover the same purpose.
More widely, the social inclusion/community regeneration fund exists to support actions against poverty and to develop effective community measures in both urban and rural settings, as well as community relations and cultural diversity.
The Executive made an advance allocation from this fund when we provided for a pilot programme of housing schemes — announced in October — designed to meet the needs of travellers. The Executive have decided to support a range of activities under this heading. These include the additional match funding required to fully deliver the LEADER+ programme, which is currently being negotiated with the European Commission.
There are also important developments in the reading recovery programme, which is a fundamental foundation for social inclusion through the education system. The proposals also support action to improve youth services and leaving and aftercare services in conjunction with the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Other important bids under this fund include actions targeted at the health of travellers, who are among the most excluded groups in our society. They badly need the kind of community-based health system and action on health promotion that is envisaged under the fund. The allocations also include a grant programme for local community-based projects that allow local people to design and manage their own actions in relation to public health, in partnership with voluntary agencies. That is targeted at the most disadvantaged and unhealthy 10% of electoral wards.
The programme also contains a contribution for a new initiative to improve adult literacy and numeracy. Finally, there is support for technical assistance to district councils to help draw up community support plans. That is particularly valuable because, under the proposal, every £1 invested by the Department for Social Development will draw in £4 from district councils for the same objectives.
As we proceed, it is our intention that the social inclusion fund should be increasingly well targeted and impact strategically upon excluded groups. There is much more work to be done on this, and I am sure that Members will wish to feed in views in this debate and in the subsequent consideration of the issues in Assembly Committees, particularly the Committee for Finance and Personnel. There are future funding rounds available that must be developed in order to make this and other funds as effective as possible.
As I said earlier, we were able to augment the provision made in the Budget for the Executive programme funds due to the outcome of the February monitoring round. I have explained in the past that the monitoring rounds are routine readjustments of expenditure plans to take account of the latest available information on spending patterns across public expenditure programmes. The February round is routinely the least significant. One of the main reasons for that is that it always takes place after the allocations in the spring Supplementary Estimates have been finalised. There is usually no scope to reallocate resources between Departments, because that would normally involve a change to the amounts in votes.
At this stage of the financial year there is limited scope to increase spending before the end of the financial year. Thus, the pattern is that some savings normally emerge. That proved to be the case in the recent February monitoring round. Departments declared savings amounting to £24·8 million. Total bids amounted to only £3·2 million. However, a proportion of the savings identified by Departments arose through issues of timing — commitments had been made that could not be fulfilled in the financial year.
In those cases the Executive agreed that subject to Assembly approval of the forthcoming Estimates, some £8·8 million should be carried forward for particular purposes. That included £950,000 for Department of Agriculture and Rural Development programmes, £7 million for some aspects of Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment expenditure and £900,000 for parts of Department of Finance and Personnel expenditure.
In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is considering the possibility of a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme, and some provision has been held in reserve which could be used for that purpose in the 2001-02 financial year. Having covered the few bids that have been lodged by Departments and these amounts for carry-over, the amount remaining was £10 million. The Executive decided that this should be carried forward from 2000-01 into the 2001-02 year and added to the Executive programme funds.
In circumstances where the Executive are conscious of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and its adverse implications on so many fronts, it is prudent not to allocate all the money available from the monitoring round now. The Executive, assisted by the interdepartmental working group chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, will be considering further regional responses to the critical difficulties. Notwithstanding the need to keep these matters under review, I hope that there will be a welcome for the Executive programme funds and monitoring round allocations announced for farming and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development programmes today. Details of the February monitoring reallocations are set out in the tables attached to the copies of the statement, which have been made available to Members.
The Executive have set out to make a difference through the allocation of the Executive programme funds, as I have outlined today. They are beginning to work in new and distinctive ways, and their existence provides a totally new way of drawing together the spending plans of many functions into a more coherent strategic approach.
The Executive began to make this difference in meetings held over recent weeks in preparation for these Executive programme funds allocations today. They have developed a strategy and made themselves more effective. They have also been able to address needs and opportunities in a range of services, including some major investments in capital infrastructure, while keeping a way open for others, which could be equally, if not more, important. The process of working together is increasingly important, given the range of departmental functions, which, in turn, represent a range of opportunities to make a difference for members of the public.
It is important that we maximise the benefits from these funds so as to make the most of the resources that we have, although we do not have enough to do all that we want to. The application of the Barnett formula means that the Treasury does not provide sufficient to match the full range of initiatives that the Government have decided to make affordable elsewhere. The Executive have responded to this problem creatively and imaginatively through these funds. They are determined to use them to make an impact on the way we do business and, most importantly, to make a difference through benefits to the public.
I will be discussing the proposals that I have announced today with the Finance and Personnel Committee. In particular, there will need to be consultation with that Committee on the approach to including these allocations in the Main Estimates. Some changes to detail for technical and other reasons may be required as the process of completing the Main Estimates proceeds over the next number of weeks prior to the deliberations on the next Budget Bill which will take place in late spring or early summer.
On behalf of the Executive, I commend these proposals to the Assembly.

Ms Jane Morrice: We have one hour for questions to the Minister. I ask that question and answers be concise so that as many Members as possible may participate. I remind the House that the normal procedure is that points of order are taken at the end of the debate.

Mr Francie Molloy: A LeasCheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. First, I welcome the Minister’s statement today on these rounds and, although the Committee did not have the opportunity — and that is our main concern — of scrutinising and going through the departmental bids in the proper way, it does generally welcome the idea behind the fund itself and the allocations.
The Finance and Personnel Committee has severe concerns about the first round of allocations and the way that they have been managed. Those concerns are at two levels that will be dealt with through questions.
The Committee was unhappy that decisions regarding the allocations under this expenditure were taken with undue haste and insufficiently detailed consideration. Committee members felt that the principle of the funds — that they should be directed towards cross-departmental projects — had been set aside. Members felt that they did not get new and innovative programmes in the lines of departmental bids.
Is the Minister satisfied that the principles set out in the management of the funds have been followed? Is it not true that the Executive Committee’s desire to gain early and positive publicity from the scheme — for which no justification has been forthcoming — has overridden the case for properly considered and equitable distribution of the money. The Finance and Personnel Committee certainly had great concerns about that last week.
A stated objective of the Programme for Government was the inclusion of projects that would assist the development of activity across departmental management lines. Can the Minister say how many of the successful bids fall into that category? I believe that the cross- departmental aim has been lost and the successful bids are for a continuation of the same issues.
The evidence given — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Please ask your question.

Mr Francie Molloy: Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand your concern about the time, but the Finance and Personnel Committee has not been given enough time to deal with this issue, and there are a number of serious issues that must be dealt with. There was not enough time in the Committee sessions to ask the questions, so we need to ask them in the Assembly.

Ms Jane Morrice: I appreciate that the Member has asked a number of questions. If he has one more, will he please put it.

Mr Francie Molloy: I express my concern that the Committee did not have the time to deal with this issue and as such it is making a farce out of discussing it now. Can the Minister assure the House that the September round of Executive programme funds will be examined in a different way?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for his points and I appreciate the concerns of the Committee as expressed by him. Given that this was the first round of Executive programme funds, matters were not dealt with perfectly. The situation is such that information is only made available to the Finance and Personnel Committee if similar information is being made available to other Committees. A more straightforward approach needs to be adopted in the future to ensure that information about bids goes to the Committee for Finance and Personnel automatically and does not depend on what is circulated to other Committees.
The first allocations from the Executive programme funds are not just a case of more of the same. I am not pretending that this first tranche of allocations achieves the degree of cross-cutting activity, interdepartmental bid development, and programme planning that the Executive want to see. This is the first tranche, and I would remind Members that we are dealing in the circumstances of Budget underfunding.
The number of demands and bids far exceeds our Budget allocations. Therefore it is not surprising that many of those, that have been of particular concern to Departments and Committees and which did not make it in the Budget, have found their way through to the Executive programme funds.
We would have been open to even more criticism if we had not embraced some of those key projects which have slipped departmental budget priorities and allocations to date but which have been able to qualify using the criteria and thinking for these funds. It is hoped that Members welcome that. The Executive need to develop their approaches in the future and that includes working with the Finance and Personnel Committee.
However, the Executive’s future management of the programme funds will depend on their developing the relevant substructure. In my further dealings with the Finance and Personnel Committee, I will have to take account of the type of subcommittees or substructures that are created.

Mr Fred Cobain: I agree with the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s concerns about this process. The Committee for Social Development was not consulted on these bids. We had the bids for information purposes, but we had no input into them. There are no cross-cutting issues involved. I thought that these were new, innovative schemes with a cross- cutting element, but there is no cross-cutting element in the infrastructural fund for new schools and new roads, and that is a deviation from the original criteria. I am raising that issue because the Department for Social Development, out of a total allocation of £146million, received slightly more than 1%. Given that there are people living on the periphery and in poverty, that is a disgrace.
The Social Development Committee envisaged the inclusion of schemes such as the installation of Economy7 heating or replacement bathrooms and kitchens in houses. However, all those proposals were rejected on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria, although three schemes, which are of no particular interest to anyone living in poverty, have been accepted. The Committee has been totally ignored by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive, but there is insufficient time to discuss these important issues.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please ask his question.

Mr Fred Cobain: I want the Minister to address such issues as fuel poverty and the need for a replacement of bathrooms and kitchens in houses, matters which the Social Development Committee has continually raised. NorthernIreland has the worst housing in western Europe. We talk about targeting social need, but the Minister absolutely excludes those who are living in poverty.

Mr Mark Durkan: I take some of the points that the Member has made, and they need to be responded to. However, the Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot say "This is not new — it is just more of the same" and then say that he wanted more of the same. The measures that the Member has mentioned were covered, and allocations were made as part of the revised Budget to address fuel poverty and the replacement of kitchens and bathrooms, et cetera. Those measures fall to be funded from the allocations that we have already made to the Department for Social Development’s budget. If we had made further allocations we would be entirely open to the criticism that we have just had: that there is nothing different between these allocations and those that were made in the Budget. We want the funds to work and develop on this cross-cutting basis to reflect regional priorities and the inputs and responsibilities of a range of Departments.
In this first tranche of funds, Departments have not yet been able to develop work to that degree or in that manner. The Executive do not yet have the full substructure to do that. It would not have been right for us to delay important allocations of much needed public funding before we had developed an absolutely perfect infrastructure, given that this is money from the new financial year.
With regard to consultation with the Social Development Committee, I am not responsible for what information the Committee did, or did not, receive. It was the responsibility of the Department for Social Development to make known its bids. Perhaps that Department, in its reading of the criteria, did not bid as widely as some other Departments. However, the allocations that have been made to the Department for Social Development will benefit people in need. The Department will use that money well to work with people who are trying to make a difference on the ground.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. We are now beginning to see some tangible evidence of the Executive programme funds. I welcome particularly the funds for schools, roads and children’s issues.
Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the grants programme for local communities to pursue local action in public health and promote stronger community development, particularly in large urban social housing developments? I particularly welcome the new school for Dromore. However, I am deeply disappointed that phase 3 of the Omagh throughpass is not in this current allocation.

Mr Mark Durkan: The grants-based initiative to which the Member referred was put forward by the ministerial group on public health to deal with the impression that there is absolutely no cross-cutting inspiration to any of these bids. That initiative will target the most disadvantaged and unhealthy electoral wards — the 10%. It will allow people to design and manage their own actions in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies and make a difference for people who need that difference. The initiative should stimulate community-based actions and should break into those cycles of deprivation and ill health.
I welcome the Member’s support for the spending that we have announced today for roads. I note his disappointment that the spending does not include the further work he has identified on the A5. There is a huge underinvestment with regard to our roads infrastructure. That is something we have been trying to make good with the Budget allocations and through this particular fund. We need to continue to work on that in the future. It is not the case that we had a bid in for every project being identified in the Chamber today.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The Minister’s statement reads:
"A key aim is to protect the vulnerable and ensure that educational access is open to all".
I am disappointed, in the light of that, that funding for the upgrading of facilities for students with learning difficulties is not included. Since current funding allocations seem unlikely to meet the timetable for compliance with disability legislative requirements, can the Minister state, in the absence of an unsuccessful bid, how access arrangements for disabled students can be made a matter of priority funding to bring about equality of opportunity as soon as possible?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive recognise the importance of the needs of students with disabilities, including those with learning difficulties. In relation to the issues of access that he has identified, that was not something that qualified in the allocations that we were making in this particular tranche. It is an issue of serious need that the Executive have identified, and our hope is that we will be able to address that issue in allocations that will be undertaken in future monitoring rounds.

Mr Seamus Close: The concept of Executive programme funds is one which I welcome. It offers many opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland, but the handling of this tranche has been nothing short of disastrous. How can the Minister convince the House that best value will be obtained through the allocation of these funds when, for example, the Finance and Personnel Committee was treated with what I can only refer to as contempt? It was given no opportunity to perform its statutory function of scrutiny. Furthermore, not for the first time, we were presented with a series of honeyed words by way of trying to cover up the fact that adequate time was not given for us to perform our statutory function.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please put his question.

Mr Seamus Close: I have already asked the question: how can we be convinced of good value for money? The Committee that is fundamentally charged with the role of scrutiny of the Department of Finance and Personnel, and thus the other Committees, was not properly consulted and had no opportunity whatsoever to express its views. How, then, can the Minister state that
"all bids have been scrutinised carefully"?
As we have said before, there must be no whitewash in the Assembly.

Mr Mark Durkan: I have just been treated to another sermon from "the man from unction". There is no whitewash in the Assembly so far as the Executive are concerned — they have responsibilities as well. I accept and recognise the responsibilities and role of the Finance and Personnel Committee and the other Committees. The Executive also have a role: to come forward with allocations across a range of programmes and to commend them to the Assembly.
The allocations that I proposed today will receive all sorts of comment from various Committee representatives, including those from the Finance and Personnel Committee. I have made it clear that we need to improve how this works in future. I have made no pretence about the fact that I am an agent of the Executive so far as many — [Interruption]
If only Mr Close would actually listen.
The Executive have to consider the issues brought before them. I regret that the information which I thought was being made available to all Committees — and which the Executive agreed could be made available to them — was not, for some reason. That is a communication error, a serious omission that we need to overcome. It is not a whitewash.
I would be glad to hear if there are any particular allocations which this Member, or anyone else, actually disputes and wants us to set aside. I come to the House on many occasions to discuss process and procedure, and I am constantly criticised about it. The statements made here and the details of the proposed allocations are available to all the Committees to pursue and query with us if they want to. Most of Mr Close’s criticism is about process — there is very little about substance.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I do not know how to follow that one.
There was a lot of flowery language in the Minister’s opening remarks — particuarly in relation to young people — and several references to investment in education and schools, with a key line about people who might "fall out of education". However, the budget for youth services — in Belfast in particular; I do not know about the other boards — has been cut this year. Its £2·7 million budget has been reduced by £400,000, but in the Minister’s statement on infrastructure we were told that this service would receive money. On the one hand the Executive are saying that they should cut youth services because the money is not needed; yet on the other hand, they are going to provide money for special youth projects. This does not seem to me to add up.
When the Minister read out the Executive’s plans for infrastructure, he did not once mention youth services. He mentioned social services in the context of providing much needed homes for people who require placements — but he did not mention youth services. How did the Executive arrive at the decision to fund an element of youth services for which his Department had already cut the funding?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive did not direct, or seek, cuts in the youth services in Belfast. The decision on those budgets was not made by the Executive. I just want to make that clear. The Executive do not direct every single pound of spend. Departments, and secondary budget holders working under Departments, make various decisions. The most important thing is that the Executive have been able to use the Executive programme fund to invest in redeveloping the Youth Service.
Investment in the Youth Service is not only in the infrastructure fund, which I referred to in my statement. The statement, long as it is, could not cover every bid. However, every bid is included in the table, so there has been no attempt to exclude anything. It is odd that I seem to be criticised for not actually talking up an allocation that was made. It contradicts some of the other criticism that we have received.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike other Members, I welcome the Minister’s announcement concerning children and young people. It is a positive first step, and I will not criticise any money going to services for children and young people. Is the money ring-fenced? If not, will the Minister ensure that it is ring-fenced to target these matters? Will the Minister inform us as to the criteria the community and voluntary sectors will need to meet to access these funds? Furthermore, can we have a list of those who are on the interdepartmental working group?

Mr Mark Durkan: The funding will be used for the particular purposes for which it is allocated. Funding will be given for a particular purpose, although it can be used for a particular whim or legitimate pressure that arises. To that extent the money is clearly distinctive as regards ring-fencing. Some allocations, particularly some of the smaller ones, are clearly in respect of pilot schemes and initiatives. Therefore it is important that those schemes are tracked to ensure that the money is best used and to learn lessons for the future.
The interdepartmental working group is mostly connected with the children’s fund. When we introduced that fund we recognised that Executive programme funds should be available and should be subject to bids from the Departments working together. We wanted to ensure that part of the children’s fund was open to direct bidding from the community and voluntary sectors.
Several Departments are involved in the interdepartmental working group — the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy FirstMinister, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Education.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome the statement in the round although I also agree with the points that have already been well made. There are few genuinely interdepartmental plans in the statement. We are pleased that some moneys have been granted for basic adult literacy and numeracy education, given that the amount included under that heading — £2·4million over threeyears — comes to less than 30% of the approximately £9million initially bid for.
Incidentally, my Committee did get an adequate period to consult on the bid and I welcome that.
Given the proportion of the bid that has been granted, what is the Minister’s assessment of the adequacy of the bid at this time? A quarter of the population of Northern Ireland will not be able to read the first few sentences of the statement — let alone its entirety — and probably will not be able to make much sense of the figures at the back as they cannot count. It is a social and economic scandal that needs to be dealt with. The statement is good as a starting point, but it does not go far enough.

Mr Mark Durkan: I am glad that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was satisfied that it had had access to information in reasonable time. I acknowledge that that is not the case for all Committees.
The allocation is just a start; it is not, by any stretch of the Executive’s imagination, the end of our interest in — or commitment to — adult basic education and the promotion of literacy and numeracy skills. The Programme for Government referred specifically to work in that area, and that is reflected in the allocation. We also want to see it getting the priority that it deserves in the Department’s budget, and that will be relevant to future Budget bids as well as to further allocation rounds.
Had we confined ourselves to meeting a certain number of bids in total, we would have been able to offer assistance in fewer areas. The Executive felt that it was important to make a commitment to starting and getting on with a number of key programme areas. We have tried to do that, and that decision was distinct from the normal Budget round. Had we acted on the normal Budget basis, we would have considered whether entire projects could have been finished at that stage or not. We believe that starting some programmes — perhaps without full funding at this stage — will put them in a stronger position for priority consideration in future Budget rounds. Previously, many of the key areas that Members consider to be the big needs have been unable to break through in the normal Budget round. I suppose that it is a bit like throwing a six to get onto the board. We have tried to do that in a number of areas with the Executive programme funds.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the announcement and congratulate the Minister and his team on their work. I know that many people will welcome the investment in schools, health and roads. I am grateful for the inclusion of the Toome bypass, having become daily more conscious of the need for it.
The Minister said that he had not fully allocated the infrastructure funds. Presumably, the next tranche of funding will allow the gas pipeline to the north-west to become a reality, so that we can be sure of a level playing field for economic development.

Mr Mark Durkan: Obviously, the Member regularly has to sit in traffic jams in Toome, as do the Minister for Regional Development and myself. That is all pure coincidence — [Interruption] — and we just feel sorry for everybody else that we see there. It is important to our infrastructure, and I hope that it will make a difference to the road between the two cities.
We want to see a significant development of telecoms. The House has shown its interest in and commitment to significant extension of gas pipelines. In both those areas, proposals must come from the private sector. Sir Reg Empey, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, is taking a close interest and is working hard on those matters. There are, at present, no proposals that would justify the allocation of funds, so we have retained the flexibility to consider any more proposals that emerge. Any subsequent decisions will be subject to all the normal appraisals.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Given the question mark over the behaviour of the Minister of Education — especially in relation to the allocation of capital funding in the past two years — I welcome the Minister’s assurance that all bids have been carefully scrutinised.
However, looking at the small print in the infrastructure fund — wherein the Minister says that some of the projects financed will require further financing in the fourth year — I am dismayed that there is an imbalance yet again in capital spending between schools that cater mostly for the Roman Catholic population and those that cater mostly for the Protestant population, in a ratio of 10:1. The Minister said in his statement that that is a result of
"each of these being of top priority within the schools planning lists."
Can he assure the House, first, that he has seen those planning lists; secondly, that the projects listed here are top of those planning lists; and thirdly, that he has assured himself that these funds are not being used once again by the Minister of Education as a party political election fund, as his previous allocations were?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive are satisfied that in making these allocations in respect of the schools capital programme, we are supporting the improvement in schools capital by taking action to reduce the number of mobile classrooms and so on — all the things that the Education Committee would like to see us do, and that the Executive wants to do. We are doing that on a basis of priority need. That is a fact. We did not manufacture how particular schools have come to fall in a particular sequence of priority need. It is there and it is real.
In many ways, what the argument raises is not just that there are other needs in other schools — clearly there are — but that there is a need for much more money in this whole area. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to seek more money in relation to the Barnett formula. I saw the schools that would have been next on the list and, even if we had some significant extra money in this tranche and were able to allocate it to schools, the presentational or perception issue that the Member seems to be identifying would still have existed.
The Executive had to take decisions on the basis of need. We set down very clearly that targeting social need, meeting need and disadvantage, and equality considerations would be key considerations in the use of the Executive programme funds. We clearly could not discriminate against need just because people raised obvious presentational concerns.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to rehearse any of the arguments made earlier by Francie Molloy, the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. As a member of that Committee, I share Mr Molloy’s views.
I welcome the fact that 62 projects will be supported by these funds. I thank the Minister for his words. Some of these projects would have been ongoing issues, and the purpose of the funds is to be more strategic and long-term. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try to influence the Executive to work on that strategic basis in the long term. I understand why the funds have been allocated in such a way.
The Minister states that the Barnett formula disadvantages this area. I would like a commitment — I know that the Minister has already done this in the past, but I want a further commitment — that this continuing problem of underfunding will continue to be challenged by the Executive.
I welcome the fact that money is being allocated to public-private partnership initiatives in order to ensure that all avenues of funding can be properly explored.

Mr Mark Durkan: I appreciate the frustration that the Member has registered as a member of the Finance and Personnel Committee. We need to ensure that we make best use of these funds, and we need to develop our whole approach to them. I hope that we will have positive encouragement from Members — frustrations notwithstanding — and the co-operation and good counsel of Committees as we set about doing that in the future.
We need to make sure that we make the best use of all funds, not just the Executive programme funds, but also the main Department funds. We also need to make sure that we maximise the resources available to us, and that will include trying to make improvements on the Barnett formula, a task which is not going to be easy or straightforward. We have a very clear view of the difficulty with the Barnett formula. Unfortunately, there are others who do not have the same clear view of the problem and are approaching it from a different starting point. Therefore, we need to build a case there.
We also need to make sure that, where we can marshal additional resources and find better means of managing some of the pressures of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, we do so. Some Departments have been examining and developing different ways of doing that, and such activity is to be encouraged. There are no easy answers, and the Treasury’s rules and interpretations need to be considered, because certain actions can count as borrowing. We need to address these issues, and that is one reason for making an allocation from the Executive programme funds to allow the Executive and all the relevant Departments to have a concentrated means of making progress on these matters.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Minister for his statement, and, like others, I welcome the overall concept of the fund. However, I want to look briefly at substance and at some of the processes involved. Does the Minister agree that there could be a perceived lack of location- specific projects for the west and north-west of Northern Ireland? He referred to the A4 project, which, he said, extends from Dungannon to Enniskillen. It is listed in the funding section as extending from Dungannon to Ballygawley. Is there perhaps an attempt to avoid highlighting the fact that the west and north-west have been left out? Perhaps we should wait and see how the various general funding is applied to those areas left out of the location-specific funding.
On the subject of process, and in response to the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, the Minister said that its problems were not his responsibility. Surely he must accept responsibility for the fact that the Finance and Personnel Committee was not notified in January that this process had been initiated. We were not given time — we were not notified that the process had come into being at the end of January in the Departments.
I realise that I have to finish, so I will end with this point. Officials gave the Finance and Personnel Committee evidence to the effect that there was not sufficient time to prepare schemes properly for inclusion in the bids for allocation. This meant — and this goes back to where I started —

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member come to the point of his question, please.

Mr Derek Hussey: — that capital projects were not included in the bids.

Mr Mark Durkan: First, I do not accept that the west or the north-west areas are not benefiting from these allocations. The region as a whole will benefit. Some proposals are locality-specific, others have more strategic, regional significance. For example, while expenditure on the Toome bypass is locality-specific to Toome and its immediate surroundings, the project has significance for a much wider area.
On the issue of residential childcare places, we will be looking across the whole region. There are also some provisions which, although they result in investment in a particular location, such as the medium-secure unit, are designed to provide much needed services across the community. As someone who served on the Western Health and Social Services council, I, along with others, had been pressing for the provision of a medium-secure unit here and for residential childcare places. In my view these announcements do not bypass those who have needs in the west and the north-west in particular.
We said, both in the House and elsewhere, that we hoped to make allocations from the Executive programme funds before we got to the Main Estimates. We always said that we would make allocations at this stage. That was never a secret — it was communicated to people.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel was notified some time ago of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s own particular bids for Executive programme funds. My regret and concern is that those making the other bids did not make similar notification, as I believe they should have. That is why I make the point that I made earlier. We want to make sure that there is just one system of "green for go", rather than try to interpret a whole series of different lights from different Committees. We will try to improve that in the future.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him. He demonstrates, more and more, that he stands at the centre of this Administration. He proves that the Good Friday Agreement and its institutions are working for all our people.
As Committee Chairman, I must welcome the good news for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — both the plan to buy out the commercial salmon netting licences, which I am very keen on from the Committee’s point of view, and the other moneys. I particularly welcome the creativity seed funding element, which covers four Departments. It is a very good example of a cross-cutting activity, despite what some people have already tried to demonstrate.
Has it something to do with the way a Department presents its budget claim for these particular funds? Have some of the Departments done that inadequately? Can the Minister expand on how the cross-cutting process works in this round of allocation? What are the plans for the future? Does he agree that this is further evidence of the need for collective decision-making involving all parties to the Executive?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am particularly glad that, as Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, the Member welcomes the fact that we have been able to fund a measure that that Committee has advocated. He has raised the issue of buying out the salmon licences several times in the Chamber, both in relation to the Budget and to various monitoring round allocations.
The welcome for the creativity seed fund is not just important for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It can also have a positive impact on employment and regeneration. We know that uplifts in cultural activity can be central to regeneration across the region.
I hesitate to comment on comparative analysis about how Departments have approached those particular funds or bids. I stress that any bids that have not been awarded Executive programme fund allocation at this stage are not, in themselves, bad or unworthy bids. They are not matters that do not need support or attention. It is just that, given the availability of resources, we could not cover everything. We had to decide on the best projects to match the particular criteria. We also had to examine the overall spread for the different funds. I hope that, notwithstanding the disappointments, we have achieved that.
It is a learning experience for all of us — the Executive and the Departments. In the future, we want to see Departments making even stronger and more clearly defined bids of their own, but we also want to see Departments working with one another to develop strong bids that have a clear, strategic impact across Government and on the entire region.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I welcome the outcome of some of the bids that I, as Minister for Regional Development, made for flood prevention and road schemes, including the Toome bypass, under the infrastructure fund. Does the Minister agree that when I was dealing with oral questions today I did not reveal the outcome of the bid or what he was going to say, despite the fact that I was in possession of an advance copy of his statement and that one of the questions was about the Toome bypass?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am glad that the Minister welcomes the decision made by the Executive Committee, and I am sure that he and his officials will use the moneys that have been allocated to the Department for Regional Development for roads and flood prevention. He informs me that he used discretion earlier. I appreciate that — I am not entirely surprised.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am extremely disappointed with the figures for the Department for Social Development — it has fared very badly in this round. I am aware that the Housing Executive put in bids that were not met. We could have been more creative in addressing the needs of those suffering from fuel poverty.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
I welcome the £0·2 million that will be given to the peripheral housing estates in Derry. However, there are inner city estates in Derry, such as the Bogside, Brandywell, Creggan and the Diamond, that are also experiencing deprivation and disadvantage. It is well documented that poor housing impacts on health, education, mental health and social exclusion, yet the entire Department only received £1·46 million over three years.
I agree with other Members that there has been a lack of consultation with the scrutinising Committees. There is no point in rehashing the points that have been made very well by my Colleagues. The funding that has been allocated to Social Development raises the question of whether the Department would have done better had the Minister for Social Development been in the Executive. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Mark Durkan: Many Members have mentioned matters that they feel should have been funded or supported, but which were not the subject of bids. It is difficult enough, when we do not have sufficient resources, to satisfy everybody by meeting bids that have been made, but it is very hard to satisfy people by meeting bids that have not been made. I recognise some of the problems that have been discussed, such as fuel poverty, but no bid was made for that area. However, some of the issues were covered previously by the Budget and so there should not necessarily have been a bid for fuel poverty.
The funds have been concentrated on the peripheral estates in Derry because those estates did not benefit from other moneys that have been managed by the Department for Social Development in programmes such as the urban initiative and the Londonderry regeneration initiative. That is why that particular bid was met.
Significant funds have been allocated to support work — not only by the Department for Social Development but also by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Rural Community Network — in respect of various estates across the region where there is a lack of community-based organisations. The funding is to try to fill some of the gaps. The Department for Social Development is working with other Departments and is trying to make a difference. It has made bids for projects that are outside of, or beyond, some of the activity that is being undertaken.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I give a broad welcome to the additional funding allocated to the education projects that are indicated in the Minister’s statement. The Education Committee was pleased to consider and comment on the bids submitted by the Department of Education, but I want to highlight the lack of time that was provided to undertake effective consideration.
The Committee was pleased to see that several of the early intervention bids had been successful in attracting some, if not all, of the requested funding, including funds for children with learning difficulties and to increase reading recovery work. Although I am pleased that capital building projects have attracted funding, I must express my personal concern regarding the apparent imbalance in the capital funding allocated to the controlled sector in recent years. I believe that that imbalance is reflected in the announcement. There is an obvious and urgent need for capital funding in all of the school sectors.
Consideration must be given to the allocation of capital funding on a fair and equitable basis in each sector. Can the Minister explain how the schools named in the statement were selected? I have a list of contenders originally provided by the Department of Education that confirms that the contenders that the Minister named today were in a list dated January 2001 under projects that were insufficiently planned. They have qualified for funding today before some of those schools that were ready and on the starting block for the original announcement but missed out. Will the Minister give due consideration to that? I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not here, but I think that this is a very serious issue, and I am not entirely satisfied that the controlled sector has been adequately or fairly treated.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive agreed the allocations on the basis of work that had been done not just by the Department of Education but by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit to ensure that the recommendations that were announced were entirely consistent with New TSN and equality considerations. Given the limited allocations that could be made from the fund for schools infrastructure, the schools that received allocations are those that were high contenders. There were other high contenders that could have received allocations if there had been more money, but, as I said earlier, with that sort of shortlist, some of the presentational concerns that have been raised would not necessarily have been assuaged.
We must allocate on the basis of need. We will get into difficulty if we decide to allocate on how things look, or on how things appear, rather than on the basis of objective need. I often get the question from this side of the House that not enough allocations are going to particular areas, and why is money going to some areas that reinforces previous spending patterns and not enough going to other areas? We cannot manage these things by appearances and impressions. If we are in the business of Government we must manage by objective need and by objective criteria, and that has been done.
We could not discriminate against need because of the obvious presentational concern that has arisen, which we were able to anticipate. However, we would have been breaching serious principles if we had tried to come to a different allocation purely on the basis of the impressions that some people might have.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I acknowledge the limitation on the funds available and the time constraints for development of departmental projects. I am aware of the relationship between the environment and health and, indeed, between the environment and tourism and encouraging new investment. Can the Minister assure me that environmental and sustainable development projects will be given greater priority in future allocations?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Department of the Environment has one allocation, like the Department of Finance and Personnel, and that one allocation is for road safety. The Executive are very supportive of the consultation exercise that the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, has undertaken as the latest in a series of initiatives. The seriousness of the problem was again brought home to us at the weekend.
As regards wider environmental issues and sustainability, some of the allocations that have been made in respect of agriculture have a strong environmental dimension — for example, farm waste management and measures to reduce phosphorisation of water. Both are very significant in environmental terms and were issues that were pursued by the Minister of the Environment at the environmental sectoral meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Jim Shannon: A sum of £1·4 million has been set aside for early intervention for children with learning disabilities. Was that the full amount of money requested by that Department? Is the Minister prepared to make available a copy of all submitted requests for financial assistance from each Department, along with a copy of requests that were successful?
Did the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development request assistance for the tie-up scheme, that the House unanimously supported last Tuesday? Of the £2·75 million that has been set aside and could be used for a possible fishing decommissioning scheme, how much will actually be granted for decommissioning?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Shannon, if you expect an answer you will have to be brief.
Minister, please be brief.

Mr Mark Durkan: There is no secret about the bids that were submitted. Many Committees have received details of the bids as submitted by their Departments. We will try to resolve the issues that have been mentioned today concerning differential timing and level of information to Committees.
It must be remembered that the bids are the property of the Departments making the bids. They are not the property of the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is something that must be clarified so that in future we do not have these glitches. Most Committees have available to them the information about all the bids that were submitted, and we are making no secret of the fact that there have been many unsuccessful bids.
The further moneys that are being referred to as being held over for February monitoring fall for future allocation by the Executive and will depend on the proposals that the Executive have and the prevailing pressures at that time.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time is up.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that I and other Members had the opportunity to question the Minister of Finance and Personnel on this important announcement, but I would like to express some alarm that an announcement of this nature should be made so late in the afternoon business of the Assembly and allocated just one hour. That is unsatisfactory.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That was not a valid point of order. As I told the Member’s Colleague, the Member for West Tyrone (Mr Hussey), last week, the allocation of time for any item of business is at the discretion of the Business Committee, not the Speaker. If the Member wishes to raise the matter with his party Whip, he is free to do so.

Private Notice Question: Road Safety

Ms Jane Morrice: asked the Minister for Regional Development, in the light of the high number of deaths on the roads over recent weeks, to detail the measures that the Roads Service is taking to address the urgent need to improve road safety.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am sure that the whole House will join with me in expressing sympathy to the families and friends of those killed in road accidents at the weekend. My Department is fully committed to the fight to improve road safety in Northern Ireland.
There are three vital aspects to reducing the number of road traffic casualties, and they are commonly referred to as the three Es: education, enforcement and engineering. For education, the road safety branch of the Department of the Environment seeks, through its high-profile road safety publicity campaigns, to change the attitude and behaviour of road users by informing them of the main causes of road traffic death and injury. Then there is enforcement: the RUC will enforce the law in relation to traffic offences. The third is engineering, which includes the provision of traffic-calming and accident remedial measures by my Department’s Roads Service.
During 2001 the Roads Service expects to spend £3 million on road safety engineering measures, allowing traffic-calming schemes and accident remedial measures to be implemented. In recognition of the need to improve road safety for vulnerable road users in urban streets, the Roads Service has allocated steadily increasing resources to traffic-calming measures since the programme began in 1990. In the current financial year, £1·4 million was allocated. As I said some weeks ago, I hope to make a further significant announcement on traffic calming before the Easter recess.
Several of the Roads Service’s other activities also contribute to improving road safety, including major works, traffic management, structural maintenance, street lighting, private streets and development control. The Roads Service has been assisting the Department of the Environment’s road safety branch to prepare a road safety strategy consultation document. I understand that the Department of the Environment will shortly seek a wide range of views on a new road safety target and road safety strategy for Northern Ireland up to 2010.
Official RUC statistics show that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error and behaviour. The road environment is a contributing factor in very few accidents. Although my Department will continue to make the public road network safer, it is important that each of us —as drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, and so on — accepts responsibility for our road safety and that of others.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for his response, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of the Environment is also in the Chamber for this question. This is the first time that we have put a private notice question to a Minister, and it is appropriate that it should be on such a serious subject. I join the Ministers in expressing sympathy to the families of those killed in recent weeks.
Several questions on road safety have been put to Ministers today. However, the issue must be considered in much more detail than is allowed by a simple question and answer or by the 20 minutes that we have been allocated.
I must admit that I am extremely disappointed that I am not hearing a much greater desire to do something — to do it now and do it fast. Does the Minister agree that there seems to be total confusion over who takes responsibility or the lead role over the three Es that he is talking about, split between the police, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development?
Secondly, the Public Accounts Committee certainly had a good go at how badly the strategy on this issue was being followed, in relation to a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. It was hoped that by 2000 this would have reduced to something in the region of 1,500. In fact, there were nearly 2,000 dead or seriously injured in 2000 — the figure was 1,950. In other words, the target was not met, and lives have been lost as a result of inaction by these Departments. Is that what it is? People are being killed — five more after this weekend and three two weekends ago — because of inaction on the part of all these organisations, buck-passing, or somebody else’s responsibility or fault. Will the Minister support a call for a high-level cross-departmental road safety task force to be set up immediately to cut across the red tape and all these barriers that are impeding us from finding a way to reduce the number of deaths on our roads? Set this up immediately; support this high-level task force on road safety, and get something done to cut the number of deaths on our roads.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for her response and her question. She has indicated that she is disappointed by the lack of response, but I should say that we — the Assembly collectively — are in somewhat of a difficulty, because road safety, per se — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: That is buck-passing.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Road safety is an issue for the Department of the Environment. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: It is an issue for everyone.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order, please.

Mr Gregory Campbell: That is the reality. As Minister for Regional Development, I have itemised traffic-calming measures — not as a result of issues that Ms Morrice or anybody else raised. I raised them in my Department, and I will be making an announcement, because I am concerned. I happen to know one of the families that were bereaved at the weekend in Coleraine. It is not a case of a lack of will on my part. I will do whatever I can within the remit of my Department.
The hon Member makes mention of targets not being met. That is a matter for the road safety division in the Department of the Environment. I will gladly meet — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Road safety is in the Minister’s remit.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will gladly meet the Minister of the Environment, who is equally concerned about the issue. I will meet him to see if there is any merit in the establishment of a road safety task force, or if there are existing arrangements that can be fine-tuned, with which we can seek to establish a greater degree of response. If the targets are not being met, we can try to see that they are. On those three fronts, we have to continue to educate the public, because all of us should pay greater attention while using the roads, whether as motorists or pedestrians. We need to try to ensure that the enforcement option — for which the RUC is responsible — is vigorously pursued. The engineering option is specifically within my remit.
As I have said, I am committed to the establishment of and additional expenditure on traffic-calming measures. I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement about these schemes. I assure the Member and the House that I will meet the Minister of the Environment to come up with measures which are not already being taken and to see if this issue can be addressed more quickly than before.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Every year there are over 800 casualties as a result of traffic turning right. What can the Minister do to remove the serious danger of traffic turning right on dual carriageways?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will have to examine right turns and other aspects of main junctions and arterial routes where there are higher instances of casualties than expected. The Roads Service is continually carrying out such work and is always looking for ways to make improvements. I have, in response to questions in the House, outlined measures that it has taken to eliminate accidents that occur specifically at right turns.
I will undertake to see what measures have been put in place, for example, in the past 12 months, and I will respond to the Member. I will also seek further safety measures at right turns where problems have emerged from time to time.

Mr John Dallat: Like all Members, I am distressed by the number of road accidents. Is the Minister satisfied that investigations after fatal accidents are sufficiently thorough to uncover all the influencing factors? Would he support a more thorough investigation so that, after all these years, we might learn the reasons for fatal accidents? We know that the primary causes of accidents include speeding and drink-driving. However, it is now widely accepted that much more information should be gleaned after fatal accidents to establish all the factors.

Mr Gregory Campbell: One of the difficulties with fatal accidents involving vehicles is that it may be weeks, as opposed to days, before all the facts emerge, and it is a very sensitive situation. When there has been a fatal accident, family members must be considered, as must the drivers of vehicles. However, I accept the thrust of the Member’s point. We ought to be able to establish the causes of these accidents and consider these factors when implementing changes. I will gladly examine the matter.
I look forward to meeting the Minister of the Environment to see if we can undertake to implement any new measures or to implement existing proposals more quickly. The Roads Service will remain committed to implementing engineering measures, including changes in structure, design, right turns, et cetera, which would help to reduce the awful carnage on the roads.

Mr Derek Hussey: My point follows on from the Minister’s response to the last question. I am aware of the three Es approach. With regard to the engineering aspect, how can road safety considerations be given greater priority when schemes are selected for completion using the funding process that the Minister must follow? Is he willing to upgrade road safety as a priority when the Department has to make choices about schemes?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The short answer to that is a simple yes. Roads Service engineers invariably face a problem, which I am sure the hon Member will be aware of given his background in local government. Roads Service engineers examine the road safety implications and the road safety history of a particular stretch of road when there is lobbying for change because of the possibility of accidents. However, many residents and public representatives feel that the Roads Service is almost saying that there must be some sort of accident to guarantee remedial works. That is a difficult situation to resolve. If there are stretches of road where there is the serious possibility of accidents and fatalities, they should be prioritised — and they are.
Occasionally accidents happen that have no obvious safety implications for that stretch of road. If speed or drink-driving is the cause of a fatality, it is difficult to see what could have been done or what can be done in the future to eliminate the problem. I take the Member’s point. I will ensure that where possible — and we are examining possible improvements — road safety will be the top criterion. If there is a road safety implication when alterations and remedial work are being contemplated, that implication will always receive high priority.
Adjourned at 5.53 pm.